Brooks v. Poulos

Ninth Circuit

Brooks v. Poulos

370 F. App'x 826

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2010

Docket07-56452

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 370 F. App'x 826 (Brooks v. Poulos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooks v. Poulos, 370 F. App'x 826 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sandy Brooks appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. On appeal, Brooks argues that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) calculation of his earliest possible release date (“EPRD”) violated both his federal due process rights and the federal Ex Post Facto clause.

As to his due process claim, Brooks argued to the California state courts that his liberty interests were violated because the CDCR did not properly calculate his EPRD. We deny Brooks’s habeas petition on this ground, because the determination of a formula for caleulat- *827 ing the restoration of good time credits is an unreviewable issue of state law, and the state court’s finding that the calculation of good time credits was correct was not “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Moreover, this record does not demonstrate, and Brooks’s counsel presented no evidence, that Brooks ever presented a due process claim to the state courts based on any alleged lack of an appropriate hearing, such that the California courts were given an “ ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ [the] alleged violations of [Brooks’s] federal rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam)). Brooks, therefore, failed to properly exhaust this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and we deny Brooks’s habeas petition on this ground.

As to his Ex Post Facto claim, Brooks did not make this argument to the lower court or any of the California state courts, and thus failed to properly exhaust it. We therefore deny Brooks’s habeas petition on this ground as well.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Sandy Brooks appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. On appeal, Brooks argues that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) calculation of his earliest possible release date (“EPRD”) violated both his federal due process rights and the federal Ex Post Facto clause.

As to his due process claim, Brooks argued to the California state courts that his liberty interests were violated because the CDCR did not properly calculate his EPRD. We deny Brooks’s habeas petition on this ground, because the determination of a formula for caleulat- *827 ing the restoration of good time credits is an unreviewable issue of state law, and the state court’s finding that the calculation of good time credits was correct was not “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Moreover, this record does not demonstrate, and Brooks’s counsel presented no evidence, that Brooks ever presented a due process claim to the state courts based on any alleged lack of an appropriate hearing, such that the California courts were given an “ ‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ [the] alleged violations of [Brooks’s] federal rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29, 124 S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 130 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995) (per curiam)). Brooks, therefore, failed to properly exhaust this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and we deny Brooks’s habeas petition on this ground.

As to his Ex Post Facto claim, Brooks did not make this argument to the lower court or any of the California state courts, and thus failed to properly exhaust it. We therefore deny Brooks’s habeas petition on this ground as well.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F. App'x 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-poulos-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack