Steven Walker v. D. Sisto , 376 F. App'x 759 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN ERIC WALKER, No. 08-16772
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00967-ALA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. K. SISTO; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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 pursuant to 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).
Walker contends that the Board of Prison Terms violated his due process
rights by delaying his parole hearings in violation of California Penal Code
§§ 3000, 3041, and 3041.5. The California Court of Appeal’s decision denying
Walker’s claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 61, 67-70 (1991).
We decline to consider Walker’s claim of cruel and unusual punishment as
he raised it for the first time on appeal. See Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 52 (9th
Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.