Thomas Owen, a.k.a. Thomas “S” Owen v. T. E. VAUGHN, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
THOMAS OWEN, a.k.a. Thomas “S”
Owen,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
T. E. VAUGHN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-56747
D.C. No. CV-06-05630-CJC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Thomas Owen appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-56747 2
Owen contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 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 Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863
(2011) (per curiam). Because Owen raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
T.E. Vaughn’s motions to strike and for judicial notice, and Owen’s motion
for judicial notice, are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --