FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELSO LEON, No. 10-15329
Petitioner - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02631-FCD
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. P. KANE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 2, 2011 **
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Warden A.P. Kane appeals from the district court’s grant of Celso Leon’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and
we reverse.
*
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).
While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v.
Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859 (2011) (per curiam). In that case, the Court stated that “it is
no federal concern . . . whether California’s ‘some evidence’ rule of judicial review
(a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied.” Id. at
863. The federal Due Process Clause requires only that a California inmate receive
“an opportunity to be heard and . . . a statement of the reasons why parole was
denied.” See id. at 862.
Leon was afforded an opportunity to be heard and provided a statement of
the reasons why parole was denied. The district court nevertheless granted him
relief on the ground that the denial of parole was not supported by “some
evidence” of current dangerousness. Because this is not a proper ground for
federal habeas relief, we reverse. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2011).
REVERSED.
2 10-15329