Arthur Martinez v. John Marshall , 508 F. App'x 614 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FEB 13 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ARTHUR MARTINEZ,                                 No. 10-56029
    Petitioner - Appellee,            D.C. No. 2:06-cv-07131-DDP
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 11, 2013 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    Warden John Marshall appeals from the district court’s judgment granting
    Arthur Martinez’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     habeas petition and its subsequent order
    denying Marshall’s motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28
    *
    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).
    U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.
    The district court granted Martinez relief on the ground that the state courts
    had unreasonably applied federal law by concluding that “some evidence”
    supported the Governor’s 2004 decision to deny Martinez parole. We review the
    district court’s decision de novo. See Lambert v. Blodgett, 
    393 F.3d 943
    , 964 (9th
    Cir. 2004). While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that 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
    , 862-63 (2011) (per
    curiam). We accordingly vacate the judgment.
    We remand for further proceedings on Martinez’s remaining claims.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                      10-56029
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-56029

Citation Numbers: 508 F. App'x 614

Judges: Fernandez, Tashima, Wardlaw

Filed Date: 2/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024