Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07507/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ron Davis
Respondent
Colvin McCright
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COLVIN McCRIGHT, B08892, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RON BROOMFIELD, Acting Warden, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 19-cv-07507-CRB (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS 

(ECF No. 4) 

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (SQSP), has filed a pro 

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the January 30, 2019 

decision of the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) finding him unsuitable for parole. He also seeks 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

BACKGROUND 

In 1972, petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to seven-years-to 

life in state prison under California’s Indeterminate Sentencing Law (ISL). In 1977, California 

repealed ISL and enacted the current Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL). DSL adopted a twostage approach to parole decisions. A prisoner first must be found suitable for parole under DSL 

guidelines. If this occurs, a date is set for his release. 

Petitioner has been considered for parole under DSL’s guidelines on various occasions, but 

each time he has been found unsuitable for parole. In the instant petition, petitioner challenges 

BPH’s latest decision finding him unsuitable for parole on the ground that by considering him for 

parole under DSL guidelines, rather than ISL guidelines, BPH violated the prohibition against ex 

post facto laws and his rights to due process/equal protection. The state’s superior, appellate and 

supreme courts all denied petitioner’s challenge to BPH’s January 30, 2019 decision. 

Case 3:19-cv-07507-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It 

shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 

not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 

entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. The petition accordingly may be dismissed if it plainly appears from 

the face of the petition and any exhibits attached to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

B. Claims 

Petitioner’s claims are foreclosed by the law of the circuit. In Connor v. Estelle, 981 F.2d 

1032 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit found that “the DSL guidelines require consideration of the 

same criteria as did the ISL.” 981 F.2d at 1033-34 (citations and footnote omitted). Both DSL and 

ISL require BPH to consider a variety of factors in deciding whether to release a prisoner on 

parole, including the prisoner’s “offense, age, habits, mental state, character, amenability to 

reform, and potential for recidivism,” and “rehabilitative efforts while in prison.” Id. at 1034 n.1 

(citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit consequently held that because the application of DSL 

parole-suitability guidelines to prisoners sentenced under ISL “does not disadvantage them,” it 

violates neither the “federal constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws” nor the 

prisoners’ federal constitutional rights to “equal protection” and “due process.” Id. at 1034-35 

(citations omitted). Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief on his federal ex post facto, 

due process or equal protection claims. 

Nor is petitioner entitled to federal habeas relief on his suggestion that BPH also 

misapplied California law. It is well established that federal habeas relief is not available for an 

alleged error or misapplication of state law. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991); 

see also Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) (petitioner cannot “transform a 

state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process). 

/ 

Case 3:19-cv-07507-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 4
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. And 

pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of appealability 

(COA) under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “reasonable jurists 

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

But based solely on petitioner’s affidavit of poverty, his motion for leave to proceed IFP 

(ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2020 

______________________________________ 

CHARLES R. BREYER 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-07507-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COLVIN MCCRIGHT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RON DAVIS, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:19-cv-07507-CRB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

That on March 3, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 

Colvin McCright ID: B-08892 

San Quentin State Prison 

San Quentin, CA 94974 

Dated: March 3, 2020 

Susan Y. Soong 

Clerk, United States District Court 

By:________________________ 

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 

Case 3:19-cv-07507-CRB Document 10 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 4