Collier
Collier v. Muntez
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Tracy L. Collier 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 affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition, McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2002). Because the state court denied Collier’s petition without explanation, we “must conduct an independent *673 review of the record to determine whether the state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable.” Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir.2006).
We reject as foreclosed the State’s contentions that there is no federally protected interest in parole release in California, and that Collier 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 .