Submitted April 20, 2011.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed May 3, 2011.
Richard E. Karr, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00510-RSL-JLW.
Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Richard E. Karr 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.
Karr contends that the Board's 2005 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); Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011). Because Karr raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.