Case ID: f-appx_369/html/0783-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Norberto G. VIDES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-56012.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 3, 2010.
    Norberto G. Vides, Avenal, CA, pro se. Kathleen R. Frey, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Norberto G. Vides appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the failure by the Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) to set a parole release date. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Vides contends that the Board violated his rights to equal protection and due process when it failed to give him a parole release date. The state court’s decision rejecting Vides’ claims was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991).

Vides also contends that the Board’s failure to set a parole release date constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Vides is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because Vides failed to demonstrate that his fifteen-years-to-life sentence is grossly disproportionate to his second-degree murder offense. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).

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