Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arthur Marcelino Mares v. M. Stainer

February 1, 2012

ARTHUR MARCELINO MARES,
PETITIONER,
v.
M. STAINER, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. 1]

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation following his May 7, 2008 conviction for burglary. He is serving a four-year sentence.

On April 29, 2009, Petitioner was validated as an associate of the Mexican Mafia prison gang and assessed an indeterminate term in the security housing unit.

On January 25, 2010, California Penal Code section 2933.6, subdivision (a), was amended to deny credits to inmates who are housed in the security housing unit and who are validated as active associates of a prison gang. Cal. Penal Code § 2933.6(a).

On February 17, 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court alleging the amendment to section 2933.6 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because it impermissibly increases his punishment. The California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 29, 2011. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on December 16, 2011. Petitioner did not file a traverse.

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

Relief by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus extends to a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court if the custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 375 (2000). Petitioner asserts that he suffered violations of his rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California and challenges the execution of his sentence.

On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), which applies to all petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed after its enactment. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008 (quoting Drinkard v. Johnson, 97 F.3d 751, 769 (5th Cir. 1996). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.