Duesler

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Robert L. Duesler 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, Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terns, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

We reject as foreclosed the State’s contentions that there is no federally protected liberty interest in parole release in California, and that Duesler was afforded all the due process that he was entitled to under clearly established federal law because he was given an opportunity to be heard at the parole board hearing. See id. at 1127-28 . We also reject the State’s contention that the some evidence standard is not clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in the parole context. See id. at 1128-29 .

Duesler contends that the California Board of Prison Terms’ (“the Board”) 2004 decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. We conclude that there was no due process violation because “some evidence” supports the Board’s decision. See id. at 1129 ; see also, Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846,…