John Witherow v. CRAIG FARWELL and NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN WITHEROW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CRAIG FARWELL and NEVADA
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-16594
D.C. No. 3:04-CV-00658-HDM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner John Witherow appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the Nevada1
Department of Corrections’ failure to deduct earned good time credits from
Witherow’s lifetime term of imprisonment violated due process.
08-16594 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
Witherow contends that the district court erred by determining that he has no
federally recognized liberty interest in the application of good time credits to his
life sentence. Witherow’s due process rights were not violated because the state of
Nevada has not created a liberty interest in the application of good time credits to a
life sentence. See Hunt v. Warden, 903 P.2d 826, 827 (Nev. 1995); see also Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). Thus, the Nevada Supreme Court’s order
rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --