Terrence O’sullivan v. Steve Moore

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TERRENCE O’SULLIVAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STEVE MOORE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 10-15700
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01469-MCE-
JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Terrence O’Sullivan 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.
FILED
SEP 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

O’Sullivan contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2006 decision to deny
him parole was not supported by reliable 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859,
862–63 (2011) (per curiam). Because O’Sullivan raises no federal procedural
challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --