Summary
applying Supreme Court law and dismissing petitioner's challenge to parole decision based on failure to make a procedural challenge
Summary of this case from Johnson v. LittleOpinion
No. 07-15940.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
June 8, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-03-01373-RMW
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Hector Arturo Oropeza appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Oropeza contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2001 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability ("COA") is required to challenge the denial of parole. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). Now the Supreme Court has 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, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Because Oropeza raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Oropeza's requests for judicial notice are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.