FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANKIE ENRIQUEZ, No. 09-17321
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00335-BTM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HARTLEY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Frankie Enriquez appeals pro se 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.
*
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).
Enriquez contends that the Board’s 2006 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). Enriquez raises no procedural challenges. Additionally, to the extent
Enriquez contends that the Board misapplied state law, that does not provide a
basis for granting a federal writ of habeas corpus. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-17321