Wagoner v. Carey, No. 07-55899 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 29 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEITH WAGONER, No. 07-55899 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-06142-GHK v. MEMORANDUM * TOM L. CAREY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California George H. King, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Keith Wagoner appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253,1 and we affirm. Wagoner contends that the Board of Parole Hearings 2004 decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights. In light of Wagoner s recent serious disciplinary infraction, the state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the Board s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 563 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Wagoner s requests for oral argument and judicial notice are denied. AFFIRMED. 1 We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether some evidence of current dangerousness supported the California Board of Parole Hearings 2004 decision to deny parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We decline to certify for appeal Wagoner s remaining contentions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (certificate of appealability requires substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right ). 2 07-55899
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
