Gonzales v. Vaughan , 436 F. App'x 764 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EDWARD STEPHEN GONZALES,                         No. 07-55764
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. CV-05-01664-GPS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    T. E. VAUGHAN,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 24, 2011 **
    Before:        PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    California state prisoner Edward Stephen Gonzales appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     habeas petition. We
    dismiss.
    Gonzales contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2002 decision to deny
    *
    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).
    him parole deprived him of due process because it was not supported by “some
    evidence,” and relied on static factors and other allegedly impermissible factors.
    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 Gonzales 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 Gonzales has not has made a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. 
    Id.
    We deny Gonzales’ request for additional briefing.
    DISMISSED.
    2                                       07-55764
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-55764

Citation Numbers: 436 F. App'x 764

Judges: Paez, Pregerson, Thomas

Filed Date: 6/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023