Victor Galinski v. Ben Curry, No. 08-16415 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 07 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR GALINSKI, No. 08-16415 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:06-CV-06524-CRB v. MEMORANDUM * BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Victor Galinski 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, and we affirm. Galinski contends that the Board s 2005 decision to deny him parole was not supported by some evidence and therefore violated his due process rights. 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). Galinski s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Galinski s request for the appointment of counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2005 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings ( the Board ) to deny parole violated due process. 1
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.
