Case Name: Dexter E. DALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-27
Citations: 440 F. App'x 561
Docket Number: No. 08-55291
Parties: Dexter E. DALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 561–561

Head Matter:
Dexter E. DALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-55291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 27, 2011.
Dexter E. Dale, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Lora Martin, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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 Dexter E. Dale appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Dale contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 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 appeala-bility ("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 Dale 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).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.