Timothy Busch v. A. P. Kane;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TIMOTHY BUSCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
A. P. KANE; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15225
D.C. No. 5:06-cv-06271-JF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Timothy Busch 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.
Busch contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not
supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. The
FILED
DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-15225
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 Busch raises
no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --