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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2011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
WENDELL STUART, No. 08-16127
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:03-CV-00128-MCE-
JFM
v.
TOM L. CAREY, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Wendell Stuart 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).
Stuart contends that the Board of Prison Term’s 2001 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 Stuart raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-16127