FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUSSELL BOWDEN, No. 08-17736
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01433-GSA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KEN CLARK, Warden, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 21, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Russell Bowden appeals pro se from the district
court’s dismissal of 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).
After this court issued its January 10, 2011 order granting a certificate of
appealability on whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Bowden’s
habeas petition and whether Bowden should have been given leave to amend, the
Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011) (per curiam).
Liberally construed, Bowden’s habeas petition essentially contended that the
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 id. at 863. Because
Bowden raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17736