Alvin Ronnel Ross v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Gov., in his individual & official capacity;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the**
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALVIN RONNEL ROSS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Gov.,
in his individual & official capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17855
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00241-RC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 24, 2013***
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alvin Ronnel Ross appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising
FILED
AUG 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-17855 2
out of statutory and policy changes regarding the grant of clemency for inmates
serving a life without parole sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(A), Resnick v Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Barren v. Harrington,
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ross’s ex post facto claim because
Ross failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the statutory and policy changes
at issue criminalized innocent conduct, increased his punishment, or deprived him
of a previously available defense. See Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41-43
(1990) (setting forth the types of enactments to which the constitutional prohibition
on ex post facto laws under Article I, Section 10 applies).
The district court properly dismissed Ross’s due process claim because Ross
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he had a “constitutional or inherent”
liberty interest in the “commutation of his sentence.” Conn. Bd. of Pardons v.
Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 464 (1981) (citation and internal quotation marks
omittted); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2005)
(procedural due process claim hinges on a protected liberty or property interest).
The district court properly dismissed Ross’s equal protection claim because
Ross failed to allege facts sufficient to show either that he was “intentionally

-- 2 of 3 --

09-17855 3
treated differently from others similarly situated” or that there was “no rational
basis for the difference in treatment.” Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562,
564 (2000) (per curiam).
Ross’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is
denied. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth
factors for appointment of counsel).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --