Clarence Young v. D. K. Sisto

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CLARENCE YOUNG,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
D. K. SISTO,
Respondent - Appellant.
No. 10-16667
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01103-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
D.K. Sisto appeals from the district court’s judgment granting California
state prisoner Clarence Young’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.
FILED
DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16667 2
The district court granted relief in connection with the Board of Prison
Terms’ 2004 decision to deny Young parole. Intervening Supreme Court authority
explains that 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 Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63
(2011) (per curiam). Because Young raised no procedural challenges, we vacate
the district court’s judgment.
Sisto’s request for judicial notice is denied.
Young’s request to file a supplemental brief is granted. The supplemental
brief, received March 15, 2011, is deemed filed.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --