Case Name: Johnny ARAFILES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY; Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-24
Citations: 540 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 12-16072
Parties: Johnny ARAFILES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY; Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 649–649

Head Matter:
Johnny ARAFILES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY; Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 12-16072.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2013.
Filed Sept. 24, 2013.
Keith Wattley, Uncommon Law, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Maria G. Chan, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the CA Attorney General (SAC), Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Johnny Arafiles appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the parole board's denials of parole after originally finding him eligible in 1991. Arafiles contends that his petition is timely under the continuing violation doctrine.
Although the parole board granted Araf-iles parole and fixed his term in 1991, the Governor reversed that decision. Relying on In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783, 800 (2005), the California courts concluded that, because of the Governor's reversal of the grant of parole, the term was not fixed in 1991 and that Arafiles is serving an indeterminate term. Arafiles cannot claim a violation of his rights based on detention beyond the term of his sentence, because the term of his sentence has not been set.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.