Victor Galinski v. Ben Curry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit October 7, 2010

Victor Galinski v. Ben Curry, 399 F. App'x 228 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Victor Galinski 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.

Galinski contends that the Board’s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. 1 The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

Galinski’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Galinski’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

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

. We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings ("the Board”) to deny parole violated due process.

Reference

Full Case Name: Victor GALINSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Status: Unpublished