Jon Randall Crawley v. M. KRAMER, Warden, and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JON RANDALL CRAWLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
M. KRAMER, Warden, and ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 10-16574
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01288-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jon Randall Crawley appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16574 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s decision
to deny a habeas petition, see Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964 (9th Cir.
2004), and we affirm.
Crawley contends that the Board of Parole Hearings’s 2006 decision to deny
him parole was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due
process rights. He also challenges the validity of the “some evidence” standard.
The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only
proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court
decided the case correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011)
(per curiam). Because Crawley raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --