McCright v. Davis

Background

Colvin McCright, identified as a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ January 30, 2019 decision finding him unsuitable for parole. He represented himself and also asked to proceed without paying filing fees based on inability to pay.

McCright was convicted of first-degree murder in 1972 and received a sentence of seven years to life under California’s Indeterminate Sentencing Law. California later repealed that system and enacted the Determinate Sentencing Law, which uses guidelines to decide whether a prisoner is suitable for parole. McCright argued that applying the newer guidelines to him violated the federal constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws, due process, and equal protection. He also suggested that the parole board misapplied California law. The California superior, appellate, and supreme courts had denied his challenge to the 2019 parole decision.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that McCright’s federal constitutional claims were foreclosed by Ninth Circuit precedent. In a prior case, the Ninth Circuit held that the newer parole guidelines require consideration of the same types of factors as the older guidelines, including the offense, age, habits, mental state, character, capacity for reform, risk of reoffending, and rehabilitation in prison. Because applying the newer guidelines does not disadvantage prisoners sentenced under the older system, the Ninth Circuit held that the practice violates neither the federal ban on ex post facto laws nor federal due process or equal-protection rights.

The court also held that federal habeas relief is unavailable for an alleged error or misapplication of state law. It therefore concluded that McCright was not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of the claims described in the petition.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It DENIED a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists could not find the court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court GRANTED McCright’s motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees, based solely on his affidavit of poverty.

The opinion’s main caption names Ron Broomfield, Acting Warden, as respondent, while the supplied case name and a certificate of service refer to Ron Davis. The summary uses the supplied case name.