Case Name: Francisco IBARRA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 710
Docket Number: No. 09-17044
Parties: Francisco IBARRA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 710–711

Head Matter:
Francisco IBARRA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-17044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Francisco Ibarra, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Kasey E. Jones, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Francisco Ibarra 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.
Ibarra contends that the Board's 2007 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 Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Ibarra raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).