The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner alleges that respondent miscalculated his parole date and denied him time credits. Pending before the court is respondent's October 14, 2010 motion to dismiss. On December 3, 2010, petitioner filed an opposition to this motion On December 22, 2010, petitioner filed a motion to amend his opposition to correct several sentences and dates. Good cause appearing, the motion to amend is granted.
On September 23, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for a writ of mandate. In this motion, petitioner requests that respondent be ordered to file "requested documents" related to this action. Petitioner does not identify the documents he is seeking. Because respondent's motion to dismiss was accompanied by all relevant exhibits, petitioner's motion for a writ of mandate is denied as unnecessary.
After carefully reviewing the record, the undersigned recommends that respondent's motion be granted.
This action is proceeding on the amended petition filed February 19,2010.
Petitioner is serving a determinate sentence of 75 years and two consecutive life sentences (7 years to life for each life sentence) for convictions of kidnaping, robbery, oral copulation, rape and sodomy. (Dkt. No. 6, at 1.)
Petitioner claims that in 1982, he was told by officials at his initial "doc" hearing that because his determinate sentence of 75 years was "later" than the maximum indeterminate sentences (28 years), he would be required to serve only half of his determinate sentence, i.e. 37 years. (Id., at 8.) Petitioner claims that he was told that at the end of 37 years, he would be paroled without having to appear before a parole board. (Id.)
Petitioner claims that in 2007 he was told that the information given to him previously regarding his parole date was in error. (Id.) In 2007, petitioner was informed that his first life term would begin in 2018, his second life term would begin in 2025, and in 2032 he would be considered for parole. (Id., at 9.)
Petitioner also claims that in 1988 he signed a time credit waiver which entitled him to earn day-for-day good conduct credits. (Id., at 8-9.) Petitioner claims that in 2007, he was informed that conduct credits would not be applied toward his life terms. (Id.)
Petitioner argues that changing the terms of his parole from what he was initially told violated his right to due process. Petitioner appears to argue that good conduct credits should apply toward his life sentences as well as his determinate sentence. As relief, petitioner asks the court to re-set his parole date to 2018, and to add the correct years of conduct credit. (Id., at 10.)
Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on grounds that it raises only violations of state law for which there is ...