David Patterson v. BEN CURRY, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID PATTERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BEN CURRY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-15898
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-02492-RMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner David Patterson appeals pro se 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.
Patterson contends that the Board’s 2006 decision to deny him parole was
not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights.
FILED
DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-15898
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 Patterson raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --