Marshall

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Donald Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the Board of Prison Term’s (“Board”) decision finding him unsuitable for parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, see Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

Respondent’s contentions that Washington does not have a clearly established liberty interest in parole, and that a Certificate of Appealability is required, are foreclosed. See id. at 1127-28 . Respondent’s contention that the “some evidence” standard does not apply to parole decisions is also foreclosed. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 904 (9th Cir.2002).

We conclude that Washington’s equal protection rights were not violated because he has failed to show that others similarly situated were treated more favorably and that the disparate treatment was based on an impermissible motive. See United States v. Estrada-Plata, 57 F.3d 757, 760 (9th Cir.1995).

Washington contends that the Board’s 2001 decision…