Shahid v. Mendoza-Powers , 426 F. App'x 505 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMAL SHAHID, No. 07-55191
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-01522-FMC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES D. HARTLEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jamal Shahid appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.
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
*
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).
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). We decline to certify the claims Shahid raises
for the first time on appeal, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Robinson v. Kramer, 588 F.3d 1212, 1217 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“Habeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not
cognizable on appeal.”) (internal citation omitted).
DISMISSED.
2 07-55191