Woodruff v. Chun

46 F.3d 1149 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Kevin WOODRUFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald Y. CHUN, Director of Parole Reg. II Northern California, Antonio C. Arce, Unit supervisor of Region II Oakland 5; Yvonnie Porter, Assistant Unit Supervisor of Region II Oakland 5 and Everett Martin, Parole Agent of Region II Oakland 5, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15637. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted: Jan. 13, 1995. * Decided: Jan. 27, 1995. Before: ALDISERT ** , CHOY and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 Kevin Woodruff, a California state prisoner appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition. In his petition, Woodruff alleges that his due process rights were violated at a parole revocation hearing when he was denied the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and deprived of sufficient notice of the charges against him. 3 The district court had jurisdiction under 28…