Clay

Michael Johnson v. Clay

Good Law
539 F. App'x 748
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 22, 201311-17321California371 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Michael Roy Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the United States Parole Commission’s (“USPC”) repeated denial of parole.

Because Johnson is challenging a detention arising out of “process issued by a State court,” this appeal requires a certificate of appealability (“COA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A); see also Madley v. United States Parole Commission, 278 F.3d 1306, 1310 (D.C.Cir.2002) (the Superior Court of the District of Columbia qualifies as a state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(1)(A)); Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 552-54 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc) (overruled on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859 , 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011)) (habeas challenge to parole decision requires a COA when underlying conviction and sentence issued from a state court). We grant a COA. Reviewing de novo, Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir.2011), we affirm.

Johnson contends that the USPC’s application of amended parole guidelines at his 2000, 2005, and 2008 parole hearings violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. However, any ex post facto violation that arose out of the USPC’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.