FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN PLACENCIA, No. 08-15676 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 06-CV-02516-JF v. MEMORANDUM * RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2011 ** Before: RYMER, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John Plasencia appeals 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.

* 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).

Plasencia contends that the Board of Prison Term’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, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, No. 08-55728, 2011 WL 1238007(9th Cir. Apr.

5, 2011). Because Plasencia raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.1 AFFIRMED.

We deny Plasencia’s request for supplemental briefing.