Rodney L. Scott v. Arnold Schwarzenegger

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RODNEY L. SCOTT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55029
D.C. No. CV-03-02560-AHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodney Scott appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition.
FILED
SEP 21 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 the 20011
decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole violated due
process.
07-55029 2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.1
Scott contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2001 decision to deny him
parole was not supported by “some evidence” of his future dangerousness and
therefore violated his due process rights. As some evidence does support the
Board’s decision, his contention is not availing. See also Hayward v. Marshall,
603 F.3d 546, 562 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --