1

2

3

4

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7

* * * 8

TYRONE T. NALL, Case No. 3:19-cv-00563-LRH-CBC 9

Petitioner, ORDER 10 v.

11 RENEE BAKER, et al.,

12 Respondents.

13 14 Nevada state prisoner petitioner Tyrone T. Nall has filed a pro se habeas corpus 15 petition challenging the computation of his consecutive sentences (ECF No. 1-1). His 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition is dismissed as 17 noncognizable on federal habeas review. 18 Nall is serving 10 consecutive sentences of 32 to 110 months (ECF No. 1-1). He 19 argues that the Nevada Department of Corrections improperly failed to apply statutory 20 credits toward sentences he has already expired or been paroled from. A state prisoner 21 is entitled to federal habeas relief only if he is being held in custody in violation of the 22 constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.

(a). Unless an 23 issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is implicated by the facts presented, the 24 claim is not cognizable under federal habeas corpus. Estelle v. McGuire,

, 25 68 (1991). A petitioner may not transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by 26 asserting a violation of due process. Langford v. Day,

(9th Cir. 27 1996). Alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law do not warrant 1\! state-law issue that is not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. Thus, the petition is dismissed. 3 The court further notes that the claim is not cognizable in federal habeas because success on the merits of this claim would not necessarily result in Nall’s immediate or faster release as it would not necessarily result in a grant of parole. Nettles v. Grounds,

(9'" Cir. 2016). 7 The court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would not debate the dismissal of this petition. 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma 10|| pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall detach and file the petition (ECF No. 1-1). 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED as set forth in this 14) order. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and 17|| close this case. 18 19 DATED this 28th day of October, 2019. 20 a1 ak) A C - 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28