Russell Bowden v. Ken Clark , 430 F. App'x 585 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 28 2011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. § 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).
    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Precedential Status: Non-Precedential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