FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 3 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER MCCOTTRELL, No. 08-15060
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-07-01089-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Walter McCottrell appeals from 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.
McCottrell contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s
*
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).
2004 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision 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 McCottrell raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Further, because McCottrell has not made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See 28
U.S.C. 2253(c).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-15060