Case ID: f-appx_467/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathaniel R. ROUSE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. T. GOUGHNOUR, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-15855.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 27, 2012.
    Nathaniel R. Rouse, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
    Amber Nicole Wipfler, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Rouse contends that he was denied parole in violation of his plea agreement, and that the Governor’s 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, 608 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). Because Rouse raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, and jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the petition states any valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

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