¶2 California state prisoner David Patterson 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 Patterson contends that the Board’s 2006 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, -U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-17 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Patterson raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
¶4 AFFIRMED.