Marshall
Smith v. Marshall
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Hubert Douglas Smith appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition, see McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.
Smith contends that the district court erred in finding that the California Board of Prison Terms’ (“Board”) decision to deny him parole did not violate his due process rights.
“California’s parole scheme gives rise to a cognizable liberty interest in release on parole” which cannot be deprived without adequate procedural due process protections. Id. at 902-03 . The requirements of due process are satisfied in the parole context if “some evidence” supports the Board’s decision. Id. at 904 .
While the district court properly concluded that the evidence did not support the Board’s finding that Smith has not *199 sufficiently participated in self-help and therapy, we conclude that the remaining six grounds for the denial were supported by some evidence in the record. See Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 916-17 (9th Cir. 2003).