FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THOMAS OWEN, a.k.a. Thomas “S” No. 07-56747 Owen,

D.C. No. CV-06-05630-CJC

Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM * T. E. VAUGHN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Thomas Owen 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).

Owen contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 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, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Because Owen raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

T.E. Vaughn’s motions to strike and for judicial notice, and Owen’s motion for judicial notice, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 07-56747