Court Opinion

ID: 218413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-09 00:01:38+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:36.058170
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 08 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ARTURO OROPEZA,                           No. 07-15940

               Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. CV-03-01373-RMW

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
JEANNE S. WOODFORD,

               Respondent - Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted May 24, 2011 **

Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       California state prisoner Hector Arturo Oropeza appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We

dismiss.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Oropeza contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2001 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, 131 S.

Ct. 859, 863 (2011) (per curiam). Because Oropeza 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).

      Oropeza’s requests for judicial notice are denied as moot.

      DISMISSED.

                                          2                                    07-15940