Case Name: Robert Michael JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY and Bill Lockyer, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 06-56738
Parties: Robert Michael JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY and Bill Lockyer, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
Robert Michael JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY and Bill Lockyer, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-56738.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Robert Michael Johnson, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Jane Catherine Malich, Esq., AGCA— Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
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 Robert Michael Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Johnson contends that the Board's 2003 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 Johnson 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.