Case Name: Gregory W. FIGUEREDO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. HEDGPETH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 07-56075
Parties: Gregory W. FIGUEREDO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. HEDGPETH, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Gregory W. FIGUEREDO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. HEDGPETH, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-56075.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Jerald Lee Brainin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Gregory W. Figueredo, Avenal, CA, pro se.
Charles Chung, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Gregory W. Figueredo appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Figueredo 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, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Figueredo raises no procedural challenges, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.