Richard Schoenfeld v. John Marshall

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 3 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD A. SCHOENFELD, No. 09-55025 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00122-VBF v. MEMORANDUM * JOHN MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2011 ** Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Richard A. Schoenfeld 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. Schoenfeld contends that the Board’s 2003 decision to deny him parole was * 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). 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 Schoenfeld raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 2 09-55025