Case Name: John STEELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Shawn HATTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 680 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 11-56507
Parties: John STEELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Shawn HATTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 621–622

Head Matter:
John STEELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Shawn HATTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-56507
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 14, 2017
John Steelman, Pro Se
Amanda Lloyd, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Steelman 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").
This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability ("COA") on whether application of Marsy's Law to delay Steelman's next parole hearing violates the Ex Post Facto 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 Steelman from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
We treat Steelman's additional arguments as a motion to expand the COA. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.