Kenyon Darrell Brown v. KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENYON DARRELL BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-56264
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01775-RGK-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-56264
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 of 2 --