JAMESON v. YATES, 385 Fed.Appx. 617 (9th Cir. 2010)

Barry Simon JAMESON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-56423.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted May 25, 2010.[*]

Page 618

Filed June 17, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See
Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Barry Simon Jameson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.

James Conrad Schroeder, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Lora Fox Martin, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-05758-CAS.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

[**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner Barry Simon Jameson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Jameson contends that he has a due process entitlement to be released from prison after serving a determinate portion of his sentence of 17 years to life.[1] However, Jameson received an indeterminate life sentence and was not entitled to release after service of a determinate term. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 375-79,107 S.Ct. 2415, 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987); In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061, 1078, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 417, 104 P.3d 783 (Cal. 2005). Thus, the California court’s rejection of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal law. To the extent Jameson challenges the California courts’ interpretation of California state law, such a claim is not cognizable on federal habeas review. See, e.g., Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1985).

We construe Jameson’s motion for permission to file exhibits as a request for judicial notice and grant the request.

AFFIRMED.

[1] We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issues of whether the 2004 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) to deny parole for four years violated due process, and whether the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)”).