Case Name: Renal NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; Board of Prison Terms, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-07
Citations: 436 F. App'x 785
Docket Number: No. 08-17016
Parties: Renal NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; Board of Prison Terms, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
Renal NELSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE, Warden; Board of Prison Terms, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-17016.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 7, 2011.
Renal Nelson, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Jessica Nicole Blonien, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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 Renal Nelson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Nelson contends that the Board's 2003 decision to deny him parole was improper, and therefore violated his 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 Nelson 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).
Because we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we not need reach Appel-lee's contentions concerning exhaustion and procedural default. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 205, 126 S.Ct. 1675, 164 L.Ed.2d 376 (2006); Vansickel v. White, 166 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir.1999). We deny all pending requests.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.