From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fryburger v. Curry

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 9, 2009
348 F. App'x 273 (9th Cir. 2009)

Summary

holding that prison's calculation of "maximum eligible parole date" did not give petitioner a liberty interest in parole on that date

Summary of this case from Renteria v. Hedgpeth

Opinion

No. 07-16414.

Submitted September 2, 2009.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 9, 2009.

Robert Lee Fryburger, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-04262-MHP.

Before: SKOPIL, LEAVY, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Robert Lee Fryburger, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas 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, 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 prison but become eligible for parole consideration after serving minimum terms of confinement." Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although a parole release date is set, parole may be denied if "the prisoner will pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison." Id. AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Fryburger v. Curry

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 9, 2009
348 F. App'x 273 (9th Cir. 2009)

holding that prison's calculation of "maximum eligible parole date" did not give petitioner a liberty interest in parole on that date

Summary of this case from Renteria v. Hedgpeth
Case details for

Fryburger v. Curry

Case Details

Full title:Robert Lee FRYBURGER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 9, 2009

Citations

348 F. App'x 273 (9th Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Renteria v. Hedgpeth

See Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 377-78 (1987). While California's parole laws do create a…

HEARNE v. CATE

CDCR's mere calculation of petitioner's maximum and minimum eligible parole dates are not substitutes for the…