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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 3 2011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