FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR EDWARDS, No. 08-16824
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:03-cv-06233-AWI
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Victor Edwards 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).
Edwards contends that he had a liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause in the accuracy of his prison records and that the prison officials’s refusal to
expunge references to his affiliation with the Crips gang from his prison records
violates his constitutional rights. Even assuming that Edwards has a protected
liberty interest in the accuracy of his prison file, he failed to demonstrate that he is
entitled to habeas relief. The record reflects that the Board of Parole Hearings
deemed Edwards unsuitable for parole for several independently adequate reasons
and not only because of his stated affiliation with the Crips gang. Because
Edwards’s challenged affiliation with the Crips gang did not “alter the balance” in
his parole suitability determination, its effect if any on the duration of his sentence
“is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process
Clause.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-16824