George Ledesma v. John Marshall

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEORGE LEDESMA,
Petitioner - Appellee,
v.
JOHN MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellant.
No. 09-16671
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00309-JTM-
CAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Warden John Marshall contends that the district court erred when it granted
George Ledesma’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
We agree. When he was denied parole in November 2006, Ledesma received all
FILED
JAN 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
process that was due to him. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862–63
(2011) (per curiam). Swarthout—decided while this appeal was pending—makes
clear that federal habeas relief is not available based on the misapplication of
California’s “some evidence” rule of judicial review. See id. at 861–63.
We direct the district court to enter judgment for Marshall and to deny
Ledesma’s habeas petition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --