FILED
JUN 08 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN ERIC WALKER, No. 10-15163
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 06-cv-02062-ATG
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. K. SISTO, Warden; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Alfred T. Goodwin, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
California state prisoner Steven Eric Walker 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.
Walker contends that the Board’s 2004 and 2005 decisions to deny him
parole were 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 Walker raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Walker’s request for additional briefing is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15163