Nikoosersht

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Ramin Nikooseresht is serving a prison sentence of 15 years to life for the 1992 murder of his girlfriend. In 2004, the parole board denied him parole. The California courts denied Petitioner’s habeas petition, concluding that there was “some evidence” to support the board’s decision. Petitioner sought federal habeas relief, which the district court granted on the ground that the state courts had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law concerning due process, by failing to satisfy California’s “some evidence” standard. The state timely appealed, arguing only that this is not a proper ground for federal habeas relief. That is, the state does not argue that, in fact, there is “some evidence” of Petitioner’s current or future dangerousness.

After this appeal began, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Although Petitioner argues that Swarthout leaves open a question about the proper outcome here, we are not persuaded. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Due Process Clause requires a California inmate to receive only “an opportunity to be heard and ... a statement of the…