Curtis Lee Sledge v. D. K. Sisto

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CURTIS LEE SLEDGE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. K. SISTO,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-15028
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01748-LKK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Curtis Lee Sledge 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
MAY 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15028 2
Sledge contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’s 2006 decision to deny
him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due
process rights. This claim is foreclosed. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859,
863 (2011) (per curiam).
Sledge further argues that his due process rights were violated because the
Board was biased. The state court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to,
nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --