FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK THOMPSON, No. 10-15946
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02577-WBS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. K. SISTO, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Frank Thompson appeals 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).
Thompson contends that the Board’s 2005 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). Because Thompson raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-15946