Charles Clemans, Jr. v. James Yates

468 F. App'x 732
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2012
Docket08-57051
StatusUnpublished

This text of 468 F. App'x 732 (Charles Clemans, Jr. v. James Yates) 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
Charles Clemans, Jr. v. James Yates, 468 F. App'x 732 (9th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Charles Twain Clemans, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C: § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Clemans argues that California Penal Code § 1191.3 and provisions in the Department of Corrections’s operating manual give him the right to earn day-for-day credits against his 28-year sentence. The state appellate court rejected this claim, noting that Penal Code section 2933.1 caps Clemans’s ability to earn credits at 15%. Clemans’s claim fails because federal habe-as relief does not lie for violations of state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 861, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), and, in any event, we are bound by the state court’s interpretation of state law, see Mendez v. Small, 298 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.2002).

We construe Clemans’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22—1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

Clemans’s request for a copy of the answering brief, received December 6, 2011, is deemed filed and is denied as moot. All other pending motions and requests are deemed filed and are granted, and the amended reply received January 11, 2012, is deemed filed.

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

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

Related

Todd Hiivala v. Tana Wood
195 F.3d 1098 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)
Swarthout v. Cooke
178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 F. App'x 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-clemans-jr-v-james-yates-ca9-2012.