Case ID: f-appx_436/html/0764-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward Stephen GONZALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. T.E. VAUGHAN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55764.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 7, 2011.
    Edward Stephen Gonzales, Blythe, CA, pro se.
    J. Conrad Schroeder, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Edward Stephen Gonzales appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Gonzales contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2002 decision to deny him parole deprived him of due process because it was not supported by “some evidence,” and relied on static factors and other allegedly impermissible factors. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appeala-bility (“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, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Gonzales 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).

Further, because Gonzales has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.

We deny Gonzales’ request for additional briefing.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.