Mario Castillo v. MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO CASTILLO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MENDOZA-POWERS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-17168
D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00814-OWW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mario Castillo appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
JUL 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the1
California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision to deny parole violated due
process.
08-17168 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
The State’s argument that California inmates do not have a due process
liberty interest in parole is foreclosed by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 561-
63 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports
the California Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision to deny Castillo parole
because the most recent psychological evaluation indicated that without further
treatment and education, Castillo posed a substantial risk to the community. See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Hayward, 603 F.3d at 563.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --