Santoro

Ronald D. Young v. Kelly Santoro

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 22, 20252:25-cv-02965California332 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 22 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

RONALD D. YOUNG, No. 24-5699

Applicant,

ORDER

v.

KELLY SANTORO,

Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

The supplemental application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied as unnecessary because it raises claims solely regarding the denial of the applicant’s petition for resentencing under California Penal Code § 1170.951, which did not become ripe until after the applicant’s prior § 2254 habeas petition was denied. See Brown v. Atchley, 76 F.4th 862, 872-73 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2023). We express no opinion as to the merits of the applicant’s claims or whether the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d) and 2254 are satisfied.

1 After Young filed his petition for resentencing, section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 effective June 30, 2022. See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10. The clerk will transfer the supplemental application filed at Docket Entry No. 23 to the United States District Court for…

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.