Case Name: Wilks JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-16
Citations: 422 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 07-55840
Parties: Wilks JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 422
Pages: 568–568

Head Matter:
Wilks JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55840.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 16, 2011.
Wilks Jackson, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
Amanda Lloyd, Esq., Office of the Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
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 Wilks Jackson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Jackson contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2005 decision to deny him parole for five years 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 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, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Jackson raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, a certificate of appealability cannot issue. Further, because Jackson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify the remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.