22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b9,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Edward Hopkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss. Hopkins contends that the Board’s 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, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Hopkins raises no procedural challenges, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2). We deny Appellee’s motion to strike documents, filed on July 25, 2008. DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4eb,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Edward Hopkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We dismiss.

Hopkins contends that the Board’s 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, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Hopkins raises no procedural challenges, a COA cannot issue, and we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).

We deny Appellee’s motion to strike documents, filed on July 25, 2008.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.