Case Name: Arthur MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-13
Citations: 508 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 10-56029
Parties: Arthur MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 508
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
Arthur MARTINEZ, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 10-56029.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
Arthur Martinez, Stanton, CA, pro se.
Lora Martin, Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen R. Walton, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
Warden John Marshall appeals from the district court's judgment granting Arthur Martinez's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and its subsequent order denying Marshall's motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.
The district court granted Martinez relief on the ground that the state courts had unreasonably applied federal law by concluding that "some evidence" supported the Governor's 2004 decision to deny Martinez parole. We review the district court's decision de novo. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.2004). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that 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) (per curiam). We accordingly vacate the judgment.
We remand for further proceedings on Martinez's remaining claims.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.