Case Name: Lonnie MORRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. BROWN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 440 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 08-15229
Parties: Lonnie MORRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. BROWN, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
Lonnie MORRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. BROWN, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-15229.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Lonnie Morris, San Quentin, CA, pro se.
Jessica Nicole Blonien, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, 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 Lonnie Morris appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Morris contends that the Board's 2002 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, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Morris 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.