Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01962/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01962-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSHAY JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DUFFY,

Respondent.

No. 2:13-cv-1962 DAD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded this case to the 

district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability.

By way of background, on August 13, 2014, this court dismissed petitioner’s petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus because it failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus 

relief.

1

 (Doc. No. 6) Specifically, the court found that petitioner failed to state a cognizable 

claim for federal habeas relief based on the California Board of Parole Hearings’ alleged 

summary denial of his request to advance his next parole hearing. (Id.) This court also found that 

petitioner failed to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief under the Ex Post Facto 

Clause based on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) alleged 

 

1

 Petitioner has previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. No. 4) 

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 16 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

altering the procedure used to calculate his minimum eligible parole date. (Id.) In the order

dismissing the petition, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. (Id.) The court 

entered judgment on the same day. (Doc. No. 7) Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the court’s order of dismissal with respect to his claim brought under the Ex 

Post Facto Clause. (Doc. No. 8) On March 26, 2015, this court denied petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration. (Doc. No. 9) Petitioner has appealed this court’s denial of his motion for 

reconsideration.

The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this case. Specifically, 

petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a 

demonstration that . . . includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that 

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues 

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (internal quotations omitted). As discussed in the 

court’s order denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

has made clear that a prisoner does not have a “vested right” under the Ex Post Facto Clause of 

the Constitution in erroneous interpretations of the law. See Mileham v. Simmons, 588 F.2d 

1279, 1280 (9th Cir. 1979). In this regard, petitioner’s Ex Post Facto claim based on changes 

CDCR made to MEPD procedures in light of a California Supreme Court decision does not state 

a cognizable claim for federal habeas corpus relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this case; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

Dated: June 8, 2015

DAD:9

john1962.coa

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 16 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 2:13-cv-01962-DAD Document 16 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 3