FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHANIEL R. ROUSE, No. 07-15855
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:04-cv-01030-SBA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
T. GOUGHNOUR,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Nathaniel R. Rouse appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
Rouse contends that he was denied parole in violation of his plea agreement,
*
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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
and that the Governor’s 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). Because
Rouse raises no procedural challenges regarding his parole hearing, and jurists of
reason would not find it debatable whether the petition states any valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
478 (2000).
DISMISS.
2 07-15855