ZUMBRO v. CULLEN, 420 Fed.Appx. 736 (9th Cir. 2011)


John Forrest ZUMBRO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vince CULLEN, Acting Warden, Margarita Perez, Chairman, Board of Prison Terms, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-17045.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted March 8, 2011.[*]
Filed March 10, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]
[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

John Forrest Zumbro, San Quentin, CA, prose.

Denise A. Yates, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:06-cv-O6010-RMW.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner John Forrest Zumbro 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.

Zumbro contends that the Board’s 2004 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, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732
(2011). Because Zumbro raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Zumbro’s motion to expand the record on appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Page 737