Gregory Galaz v. TOM 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GREGORY GALAZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TOM E. VAUGHN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-55430
D.C. No. 2:05-cv-05759-GPS-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gregory Galaz 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
DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 08-55430
Galaz contends that the Board’s 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011); Roberts v. Hartley,
640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Cooke). Because Galaz raises
no procedural challenges, we affirm.
We decline to expand the certificate of appealability to include Galaz’s
uncertified claims of breach of the plea agreement and violation of the Ex Post
Facto Clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --