Case Name: Steven Eric WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-19
Citations: 376 F. App'x 759
Docket Number: No. 08-16772
Parties: Steven Eric WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 759–760

Head Matter:
Steven Eric WALKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-16772.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 19, 2010.
Steven Eric Walker, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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 Steven Eric Walker appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Walker contends that the Board of Prison Terms violated his due process rights by delaying his parole hearings in violation of California Penal Code § 3000, 3041, and 3041.5. The California Court of Appeal's decision denying Walker's claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-70, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).
We decline to consider Walker's claim of cruel and unusual punishment as he raised it for the first time on appeal. See Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th Cir.1994).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.