Fryburger

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Lee Fryburger, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition. The district court rejected Fryburger’s contention that he was entitled to parole because he had served fifteen years of his fifteen-years-to-life sentence. We affirm.

“There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 , 99 S.Ct. 2100 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). Nonetheless, a prisoner may acquire a liberty interest in parole if a state, *274 through the use of mandatory language, creates a presumption that parole will be granted when certain designated conditions are satisfied. See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987).

We agree with the district court that the prison’s calculation of a “maximum eligible parole date” did not create a liberty interest that Fryburger would be paroled on that date. “Under California law, prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence for second degree murder may serve up to life in…