Steven Eric Walker v. D. K. Sisto; Attorney General of the State of California

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
STEVEN ERIC WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-16772
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00967-ALA
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
APR 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 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.

-- 2 of 2 --