Gilman

Gilman v. Brown

Good Law
110 F. Supp. 3d 989·2014 WL 9953246·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26386
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 2014No. CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKDCalifornia16,017 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Plaintiffs in this certified class action are inmates in California state prisons who are serving terms of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Plaintiffs assert that Propositions 9 and 89 have retrospectively increased their punishments, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Proposition 9 amended California law to, among other things, increase the time between parole hearings. 2008 Cal. Legis. Serv. Prop. 9 (West), amending in pertinent part, Cal.Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(3) (extending deferral periods) and (b)(4) and (d) (advance hearings). The class challenging this Proposition consists of “‘all California state prisoners who have been sentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole for an offense that occurred before November 4, 2008.’ ” ECF No. 340 ¶1. • ,

Proposition 89 amended the California Constitution to grant the Governor the authority to review parole decisions of California’s Board of Parole Hearings (the “Board”), regarding parole decisions of prisoners convicted of murder. 1988 Cal. Legis. Serv. Prop. 89 (West), amending Cal. Const. Art. V, § 8. The class challenging this Proposition consists of “ ‘all…

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.