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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 08 2011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