Case Name: Robert MENDOZA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robert HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-09
Citations: 431 F. App'x 604
Docket Number: No. 08-55824
Parties: Robert MENDOZA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robert HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 431
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
Robert MENDOZA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Robert HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 08-55824.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 5, 2011.
Filed May 9, 2011.
Marc Grossman, Law Offices of Marc E. Grossman, Upland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Amanda Lloyd, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondenf-Appellant.
Before: REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Warden Robert J. Hernandez appeals the grant of Robert Mendoza's habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 2553. We reverse.
Federal due process requires only that a prisoner seeking parole receive an opportunity to be heard, notification of the reasons for any denial, and advance access to the record. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir.2011). The parties agree that Mendoza was afforded this constitutionally adequate process. The district court did not have the benefit of these subsequent decisions, which now compel a denial of Mendoza's petition.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.