Haynes v. Valadez , 372 F. App'x 734 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD O. HAYNES, No. 06-16642
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-02-02686-FCD
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES VALADEZ, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010 **
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald O. Haynes appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AH/Research
Haynes contends that the Board of Prison Terms (“Board”) violated his
rights to equal protection and due process when it failed to give him a parole
release date. The state court’s decision denying Haynes’ claims was neither
contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502
U.S. 61, 67-68 (1991).
Haynes next contends that the Board’s failure to set a fixed sentence term
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Haynes is not entitled to habeas relief on this claim because Haynes failed to
demonstrate that his sentence of seven-years-to-life is grossly disproportionate to
his two first-degree murder and two kidnapping offenses. See Lockyer v. Andrade,
538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003).
Haynes last contends that a parole regulation was retroactively applied in
violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. Haynes is not entitled to habeas relief on
this claim. See Smith v. United States Parole Comm’n, 875 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th
Cir. 1989) (rejecting petitioner’s claim because parole guidelines are not “laws” for
purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause).
AFFIRMED.
AH/Research 06-16642