Case Name: Jamal SHAHID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-11
Citations: 426 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 07-55191
Parties: Jamal SHAHID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 505–505

Head Matter:
Jamal SHAHID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-55191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 11, 2011.
Jamal Shahid, Avenal, CA, pro se.
Collette C. Cavalier, Esq., Office of the Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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 Jamal Shahid appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
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). We decline to certify the claims Shahid raises for the first time on appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Robinson v. Kramer, 588 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir.2009) ("Habeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not cognizable on appeal.") (internal citation omitted).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.