Jeffry Ian Cook v. THOMAS CAREY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JEFFRY IAN COOK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS CAREY, Warden;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-16525
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-00869-ALA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. ALARCÓN, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jeffry Ian Cook 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
JAN 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16525
Cook contends that the Board of Prison Hearings’s 2004 decision finding
him unsuitable for parole is not supported by some evidence and was otherwise
improper. The only 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 Cook raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --