Case Name: Burch Michael BOWEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.A. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 07-17082
Parties: Burch Michael BOWEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.A. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
Burch Michael BOWEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.A. KRAMER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-17082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
Burch Michael Bowen, pro se.
Amy Daniel, Heather M. Heckler, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for RespondentAppellee.
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 Burch Michael Bowen appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Bowen 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). Because Bowen raises no procedural challenges, 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.