Swarthout v. Cooke
562 U.S. ___ (2011)

Annotate this Case

562 U. S. ____ (2011)
SWARTHOUT V. COOKE
562 U. S. ____ (2011)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

GARY SWARTHOUT, WARDEN v. DAMON COOKE

MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION v. ELIJAH CLAY

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 10–333. Decided January 24, 2011

   Justice Ginsburg, concurring.

   In Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. Hill, 472 U. S. 445, 455 (1985), this Court held that, to comply with due process, revocation of a prisoner’s good time credits must be supported by “some evidence.” If California law entitled prisoners to parole upon satisfaction of specified criteria, then Hill would be closely in point. See In re Rosenkrantz, 29 Cal. 4th 616, 657–658, 59 P. 3d 174, 205 (2002). The Ninth Circuit, however, has determined that for California’s parole system, as for Nebraska’s, Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U. S. 1 (1979), is the controlling precedent. Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F. 3d 546, 559–561 (2010) (en banc)). Given that determination, I agree that today’s summary disposition is in order.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.