The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE MORRIS, No. 08-15229
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-02813-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
J. BROWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Lonnie Morris appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Morris contends that the Board’s 2002 decision to deny him parole was not
supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. After
*
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).
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 Morris 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).
DISMISSED.
2 08-15229