Case Name: Terrence O'SULLIVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steve MOORE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-29
Citations: 450 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 10-15700
Parties: Terrence O’SULLIVAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Steve MOORE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 681–682

Head Matter:
Terrence O’SULLIVAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Steve MOORE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 10-15700.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Sept. 29, 2011.
Steven Charles Sanders, Sanders & Associates, West Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
David N. Sunada, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Terrence O'Sullivan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
O'Sullivan contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2006 decision to deny him parole was not supported by reliable evidence and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke,—U.S.-,- -, 181 S.Ct. 859, 862-68, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because O'Sullivan raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.