Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

436 F. App'x 809

Steven Walker v. D. Sisto

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 8, 2011

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2011-06-08

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Swarthout v. Cooke · Swarthout v. Cooke

Decided 2011-06-08

¶1 MEMORANDUM

¶2 California state prisoner Steven Eric Walker 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.

¶3 Walker contends that the Board’s 2004 and 2005 decisions to deny him parole were 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Walker raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

¶4 Walker’s request for additional briefing is denied.

¶5 AFFIRMED.

¶6 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

/436/fappx/809 · .json · Public domain