# Kenyon Brown v. Kelly Santoro

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4662676

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 24, 2021
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Habeas
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4662676

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENYON DARRELL BROWN, No. 20-56264

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01775-RGK-JDE

v.
MEMORANDUM*
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Kenyon Darrell Brown appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal of a habeas petition, see Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2001), and we affirm.

In his petition, Brown alleged that the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation discriminates against him by denying him equal access to

opportunities to earn good conduct credits and participate in rehabilitative

programs. He also alleged that, in light of the coronavirus and the conditions in his

prison, he is at high risk and cannot access to rehabilitative and educational

programs. These claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” because success

on the claims would not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from

confinement. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the petition.

We treat Brown’s argument that he is entitled to resentencing as a motion to

expand the certificate of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th

Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

Appellant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis are granted.

Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel, and all other pending

motions, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-56264

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4662676. Public record. Not legal advice.