In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's holding that federal courts could undertake a substantive review of state courts' application of state law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 859, 860, 178 L. Ed. 2d 732, 740 (2011). While California's some evidence standard does create a liberty interest in parole, Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1991)held that there should be no substantive due process examination of a state's laws. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct. at 861-62, 178 L. Ed. 2d at 742. Therefore, federal courts may only undertake a procedural due process review of habeas petitions concerning parole denials. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct. at 862, 178 L. Ed. 2d at 743. This review, however, is limited to the standard articulated in Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1,99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979): As long as the prisoner has received notice and an opportunity to be heard during parole proceedings, federal procedural due process has been satisfied. Swarthout, 562 U.S. at __, 131 S. Ct. at 862, 178 L. Ed. 2d at 743.
Here, Petitioner has not alleged a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the record clearly reflects Petitioner was present, with counsel, at his parole hearing. Therefore, procedural due process is satisfied under Swarthout.