Case Name: Terry L. SLAUGHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 09-15181
Parties: Terry L. SLAUGHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 699–700

Head Matter:
Terry L. SLAUGHTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-15181.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Terry L. Slaughter, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT and WARDLAW, 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
California state prisoner Terry L. Slaughter appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Slaughter contends that his rights to due process and equal protection were violated when the Department of Corrections assessed a 130-day forfeiture of good time credits in violation of California statutory law and regulations. The California Superior Court denied relief because Slaughter could not establish that the forfeiture of credits was erroneous. This decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Nor was the decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Based on the foregoing, we need not reach the certified issue.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.