William Blaine Mayfield v. THOMAS L. CAREY and 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WILLIAM BLAINE MAYFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS L. CAREY and ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-15195
D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01182-JAM-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Blaine Mayfield 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
DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 09-15195
Mayfield contends that the Governor’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. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011); Styre
v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (acknowledging Cooke and holding
that due process does not require Governor to hold second suitability hearing
before reversing parole grant); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47
(9th Cir. 2011) (applying Cooke). Because Mayfield raises no procedural
challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --