Dennis Hamilton v. Board of Parole Hearing

Ninth Circuit

Dennis Hamilton v. Board of Parole Hearing

680 F. App'x 630

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2017

Docket11-16437

StatusUnpublished

This text of 680 F. App'x 630 (Dennis Hamilton v. Board of Parole Hearing) 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

Dennis Hamilton v. Board of Parole Hearing, 680 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis L. Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2009 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss. 1

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Hamilton’s next parole hearing violates the Ex Post Facto *631 Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Hamilton from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis L. Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2009 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss. 1

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Hamilton’s next parole hearing violates the Ex Post Facto *631 Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Hamilton from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 F. App'x 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-hamilton-v-board-of-parole-hearing-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack