FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 10 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MICHAEL JOHNSON, No. 06-56738
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-02012-JTM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TOM L. CAREY and BILL LOCKYER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert Michael Johnson 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).
Johnson contends that the Board’s 2003 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, 862-63 (2011). Because Johnson 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.
2 06-56738