-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 28 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUSSELL BOWDEN, No. 08-17736 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01433-GSA v. MEMORANDUM * KEN CLARK, Warden, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted April 21, 2011 ** Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Russell Bowden appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his
28 U.S.C. § 2254habeas 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). After this court issued its January 10, 2011 order granting a certificate of appealability on whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Bowden’s habeas petition and whether Bowden should have been given leave to amend, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke,
131 S. Ct. 859(2011) (per curiam). Liberally construed, Bowden’s habeas petition essentially contended that the 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. See
id. at 863. Because Bowden raises no procedural challenges, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 2 08-17736
Document Info
Docket Number: 08-17736
Citation Numbers: 430 F. App'x 585
Judges: Clifton, Goodwin, Wallace
Filed Date: 4/28/2011
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/3/2023