638 F.3d 1101
9th Cir.2010Background
- Eight California life-term prisoners represent a class challenging Proposition 9 (Marsy’s Law) as Ex Post Facto; they allege altered parole deferral periods increase confinement risks.
- Prop 9 changed deferral periods for parole hearings: minimum deferral rose to three years, maximum to fifteen; default deferral is fifteen years unless evidence supports shorter periods.
- Prop 9 introduced mandatory advance hearings or early review possibilities, with procedural steps and victim views required for requests.
- California parole scheme retains public-safety focus and Governor review using the Board’s criteria; some evidence of future dangerousness remains required to deny parole.
- District court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Prop 9; the state appealed; the panel reversed the injunction.
- Court analyzes whether Prop 9 creates a significant risk of prolonging incarceration under Morales and Garner and whether advance hearings mitigate risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Prop 9 create a significant risk of prolonging incarceration? | Plaintiffs argue Prop 9 lengthens confinement via longer deferrals. | Defendant contends no significant risk; changes do not increase punishment. | No significant risk; ex post facto claim fails. |
| Do advance hearings adequately mitigate ex post facto risk? | Advance hearings are insufficient to prevent prolonged confinement. | Advance hearings, plus discretionary relief, reduce risk. | Adequate mitigation; no violation found. |
| Do Morales and Garner control analysis of retroactive parole changes here? | Prop 9 is more restrictive than Morales/Garner; risks greater. | Prop 9 aligns with framework upheld in Morales/Garner; policy retains discretion. | Prop 9 does not automatically violate Ex Post Facto; District court erred in injunction. |
| Should the district court's injunction be affirmed given standard of review? | Abuse of discretion; injunction reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000) (ex post facto analysis of parole-frequency changes; discretion and advance reviews matter)
- Morales v. Dept. of Corr., 514 U.S. 499 (1995) (retroactive parole changes must show significant risk of increased punishment)
- Hinkson v. United States, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (abuse of discretion requires supportable record in applying legal standard)
- Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc; public-safety factors; some evidence standard in parole denial)
- Morales v. California Dept. of Corrections, 190 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2008) (state-law parole standards; public-safety focus; no significant risk from time-between-hearings)