Champion
Champion v. Marshall
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Richard Eugene Champion appeals pro se from 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 Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
• We reject as foreclosed the State’s contention that there is no federally protected liberty interest in parole release in California. See id. at 1127-28 .
Champion contends that the 2001 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (the “Board”) finding him unsuitable for parole violated his due process rights. Although Champion failed to exhaust this claim in state court, we may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits “when it is perfectly clear that the applicant does not raise even a colorable federal claim.” Cassett v. Stetuart, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir.2005). We conclude that Champion has not raised a colorable due process claim because “some evidence” supports the Board’s decision, including an unfavorable psychiatric report and Champion’s lack of verified parole plans. See Sass, 461 F.3d at 1129 .