FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH E. WIGGINS, No. 09-16091
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01175-OWW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J. F. SALAZAR,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Keith E. Wiggins 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.
Wiggins contends that the 2006 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings
*
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).
(“Board”) denying his parole was not supported by “some evidence” of current
dangerousness 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 Wiggins raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Wiggins’s motions for judicial notice, received on November 23, 2009, and
February 22, 2010, respectively, are deemed filed and are denied as moot. His
suggestion for supplemental briefing on the impact of Cooke is also denied.
See Pearson v. Muntz, No. 08-55728, 2011 WL 1238007, at *5 (9th Cir. April 5,
2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-16091