John C. Montue v. TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOHN C. MONTUE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, Warden;
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-16624
D.C. No. 2:04-CV-01697-FCD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner John C. Montue 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
OCT 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-16624 2
Montue contends that the Board’s 2002 decision to deny him parole was not
supported by “some 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, 863 (2011) (per curiam).
Because Montue raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Respondent Teresa A. Schwartz’s motion to strike and request for judicial
notice are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --