Case Name: Bernard HOUSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-13
Citations: 442 F. App'x 306
Docket Number: No. 08-15084
Parties: Bernard HOUSTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
Bernard HOUSTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-15084.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 13, 2011.
Bernard Houston, pro se.
Jessica Nicole Blonien, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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 Bernard Houston appeals 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. Houston contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2004 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Houston raises no federal 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.