Court Opinion

ID: 219717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-25 00:01:15+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:41.736362
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 24 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANK THOMPSON,                                  No. 10-15946

               Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02577-WBS

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
D. K. SISTO, Warden,

               Respondent - Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted June 15, 2011 **

Before:        CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

       California state prisoner Frank Thompson 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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Thompson contends that the Board’s 2005 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, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011)

(per curiam). Because Thompson raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

      We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.

22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per

curiam).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    10-15946