Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel P. ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY-EAST and John Marshall, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-55616.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 3, 2011.
    Daniel P. Allen, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Gregory Marcot, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    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 Daniel P. Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Allen contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s 2002 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision was not supported by evidence of current dangerousness. 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, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Allen 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 Allen has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See id.

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