Case Name: Willie EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden; Board of Parole Hearings; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-19
Citations: 466 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 09-16589
Parties: Willie EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden; Board of Parole Hearings; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 630–630

Head Matter:
Willie EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden; Board of Parole Hearings; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-16589.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 19, 2012.
Mary E. Pougiales, Counsel, Pougiales Law Offices, Novato, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Willie Edwards, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Amanda Jane Murray, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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 Willie Edwards appeals 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.
Edwards contends that the Board of Prison Hearings's 2005 decision finding him unsuitable for parole is not supported by some evidence and was otherwise improper. The only 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.—,—-—, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Edwards raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Edwards's motion to set oral argument and/or for decision is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.