Case Name: Russell BOWDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-28
Citations: 430 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 08-17736
Parties: Russell BOWDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
Russell BOWDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-17736.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 21, 2011.
Filed April 28, 2011.
Russell Bowden, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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 Russell Bow-den appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
After this court issued its January 10, 2011 order granting a certificate of appeal-ability on whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Bowden's habeas petition and whether Bowden should have been given leave to amend, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Liberally construed, Bowden's habeas petition essentially contended that the decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some 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 id. at 863. Because Bowden raises no 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.