From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kelley v. Wong

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 11, 2011
446 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 09-15939 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01713-ALA

08-11-2011

STANLEY KELLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT K. WONG, Warden; OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Respondents - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding

Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Stanley Kelley appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Kelley contends that the his due process rights were violated because the Governor's 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence." This claim is foreclosed by Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (holding that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural).

To the extent that Kelley contends that the Governor violated his due process rights by failing to hold a hearing before reversing the grant of parole by the California Board of Prison Terms, that contention is foreclosed by Styre v. Adams, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 2176465, at *1-2 (9th Cir. June 6, 2011) (holding that Cooke implicitly rejects argument that the Governor was required to hold a hearing before reversing the Board's decision granting parole).

Kelly's remaining claims lack merit.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Kelley v. Wong

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 11, 2011
446 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Kelley v. Wong

Case Details

Full title:STANLEY KELLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ROBERT K. WONG, Warden; OFFICE OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 11, 2011

Citations

446 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2011)