Case Name: Wayne A. GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, 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 520
Docket Number: No. 08-16422
Parties: Wayne A. GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Wayne A. GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-16422.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 11, 2011.
Wayne A. Graham, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Scott C. Mather, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, 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 Wayne A. Graham appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Graham contends that the Board of Prison Term'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, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Graham 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).
Further, because Graham has not has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.