Case Name: Ronald Evans TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-09
Citations: 437 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 09-16366
Parties: Ronald Evans TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
Ronald Evans TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-16366.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Ronald Evans Taylor, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Ronald Evans Taylor appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Taylor contends that the Board's 2005 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) (per curiam).
Because Taylor has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his remaining claims, we decline to certify any of his claims and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.