Charles Clemans, Jr. v. James Yates

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 08-57051 · 2012-02-21 · Unpublished

Charles Twain CLEMANS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Respondents-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHARLES TWAIN CLEMANS, Jr., No. 08-57051 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01162-WQH v. JAMES A. YATES and EDMUND G. MEMORANDUM * BROWN, Jr., Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. at 15%. Clemans’s claim fails because federal habeas relief does not lie for violations of state law, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct.

859, 861 (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.

2 08-57051