FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARD HOUSTON, No. 08-15084
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-03369-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Bernard Houston 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).
Houston contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863
(2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying
Cooke). Because Houston raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-15084