FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK PAGE, No. 08-55266
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-06071-AHM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN MARSHALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Patrick Page appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We
dismiss.
Page contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not
*
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).
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 Page 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 Page has not has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. Id.
We deny Page’s “motion to amend petition for writ of habeas corpus,”
received on October 14, 2008.
DISMISSED.
2 08-55266