Harold Harvey Hawks v. BEN CURRY, Warden CTF;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HAROLD HARVEY HAWKS,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
BEN CURRY, Warden CTF; et al.,
Respondents - Appellants.
No. 10-17154
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-04605-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Ben Curry and Randy Grounds appeal from the district court’s judgment
granting California state prisoner Harold Harvey Hawks’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas
petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.
FILED
DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17154 2
The district court granted relief in connection with the Board of Parole
Hearings’ 2007 decision to deny Hawks parole. Intervening Supreme Court
authority explains that 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 Hawks raised no procedural
challenges, we vacate the district court’s judgment.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --