Thomas McCoy v. RANDY GROUNDS, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
THOMAS MCCOY,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellant.
No. 10-17179
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-04687-RMW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 15, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Warden Randy Grounds appeals from the district court’s order granting
California state prisoner Thomas McCoy’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of
habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse and
remand.
FILED
APR 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17179 2
The district court granted relief on the ground that the state court
unreasonably applied California’s “some evidence” requirement, when it upheld
the California Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to deny parole. Subsequently
decided cases of the Supreme Court and this court hold that this is not a proper
ground for federal habeas relief. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2011). The only federal rights at issue in the parole context are procedural,
and the only proper inquiry is what process McCoy received, not whether the state
court decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863
(2011) (per curiam). Those required procedures are “minimal,” and demand
nothing more than providing McCoy with an opportunity to be heard and a
statement of reasons why parole was denied. Id. at 862.
We reverse and remand for the district court to determine in the first instance
whether McCoy received an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement
of reasons why parole was denied. See Swarthout, 131 S. Ct. at 862. If he was not,
the district court should determine whether it can, under present Supreme Court
precedent, provide habeas corpus relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --