Case ID: f-appx_436/html/0766-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark MCGUIRE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathy MENDOZA-POWERS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-16365.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 7, 2011.
    Mark McGuire, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents 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 Mark McGuire appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

McGuire contends that the Board’s 2004 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, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because McGuire 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 McGuire has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . To the extent that McGuire has preserved for appellate review the claim that he was interrupted and precluded from finishing his "final statement” to the Board, the record reflects that he was given an opportunity to be heard. See Cooke, 131 S.Ct. at 862.