From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castle v. S. Woodford

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 27, 2008
279 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-55780.

Submitted May 20, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 27, 2008.

Robert Castle, Avenal, CA, pro se.

Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, Jennifer L. Dolan, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-00313-TJW.

Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and GOULD, 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 Robert Castle appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

As a threshold matter, we reject the state's contention that California prisoners do not have a liberty interest in parole. See Sass v. Col. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2006).

Castle contends that the California Board of Prison Terms' ("Board") 2003 and 2004 decisions finding him unsuitable for parole resulted in his being incarcerated beyond the date contemplated in his plea agreement. We conclude that the California state court's decision denying this claim was not objectively unreasonable. See Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852-53 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Brown v. Poole, 337 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2003).

Castle also contends that the Board's decisions violated his right to due process. However, there was no due process violation because some evidence supports the Board's decisions. See Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the state court's decision rejecting Castle's claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Irons, 505 F.3d at 851.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Castle v. S. Woodford

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 27, 2008
279 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Castle v. S. Woodford

Case Details

Full title:Robert CASTLE, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Director of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

279 F. App'x 577 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Saldate v. Adams

The Ninth Circuit has rejected, and continues to reject, this argument. See Castle v. Woodford, 279 Fed.Appx.…