Case Name: Bernard JACKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SOLIS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 234 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 06-16090
Parties: Bernard JACKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SOLIS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Bernard JACKSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SOLIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-16090.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 15, 2007.
Bernard Jackson, Jr., Soledad, CA, pro se.
Scott C. Mather, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Bernard Jackson, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the denial of parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
Jackson contends that the California Board of Prison Terms' (the "Board") decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. We disagree. Because the California courts denied the petition as moot, there is no reasoned state decision for us to review on the merits. See Pirtle v. Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2002). We therefore review de novo, and hold that the denial of parole was supported by some evidence of several factors. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); see also Sass, 461 F.3d at 1128-29 (concluding that the requirements of due process are satisfied in the parole context if "some evidence" supports the Board's decision). We also conclude that the supporting evidence had sufficient indicia of reliability. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.