Demetrius Borstad v. J. Hartley

ORDER

These cases involve challenges to Proposition 9, The Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008 (“Marsy’s Law”), see Cal. Const. art. I, § 28; Cal Penal Code §§ 679.026, 3041.5, 3043, 3044, by California prisoners serving indeterminate life sentences with the possibility of parole. Argument in each case was heard on August 12, 2013, and submission was vacated in each case on April 30, 2015, pending this Court’s decision in Gilman v. Brown, No. 14-15613. In the wake of our opinions in Gilman v. Brown, 814 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2016), and Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), we today resubmit these cases for decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and vacate and remand for identical reasons in each case.

1. In each of these cases, petitioners sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , arguing that as applied Marsy’s Law violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, §§ 9,' 10,' by impermissibly advancing the dates for parole hearings. None of the petitioners’ claims lies at “the core of habeas corpus,” because petitioners do not challenge the “validity of any confinement or ... the particulars affecting its duration,” Muhammad…