Case Name: Kurt WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, 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 574
Docket Number: No. 09-16541
Parties: Kurt WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
Kurt WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-16541.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 9, 2011.
Kurt Washington, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Krista Leigh Pollard, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, 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 Kurt Washington appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the loss of work-time credits following a prison disciplinary proceeding. We dismiss.
Washington contends that the 30-day loss of work-time credits assessed following his prison disciplinary conviction violated his constitutional rights. After briefing was completed in this case, this court held that a certificate of appealability is required to challenge an administrative decision. See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554-55 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). Because Washington has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.