FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRADFORD O. BRYANT, No. 08-16754

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00723-JSW

v.

MEMORANDUM *

RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 19, 2011 **

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Bradford O. Bryant 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.

Bryant contends that the Governor’s 2003 decision to deny him parole was

not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011); Styre

v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (acknowledging Cooke and holding

that due process does not require Governor to hold second suitability hearing

before reversing parole grant); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47

(9th Cir. 2011) (applying Cooke). Because Bryant raises no procedural challenges,

we affirm.

Bryant’s motion for judicial notice is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 08-16754