Unpublished Disposition, 920 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 920 F.2d 936 (9th Cir. 1990)

Lemonta Renna McBROOM, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Eddie YLST, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 89-15747.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 31, 1990.* Decided Dec. 17, 1990.

Before TANG, FLETCHER and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Petitioner appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the length of his prison term set by the California Board of Prison Terms (BPT) and the failure to parole him which he claims effectively denies him needed medical and psychiatric treatment. He contends that discrimination on the basis of race has caused the BPT to impose a longer sentence on him than similarly situated white defendants. He gives several examples of white defendants who received lesser sentences.

A magistrate and district court judge have each independently reviewed the record and this court has conducted an independent review. The magistrate and district court judge each concluded that the petitioner has not established that he has unmet needs for psychiatric treatment while he is in prison. We agree.

The magistrate and the district court judge each concluded further that the petitioner has not shown that his prison term was set at a higher level than that of other prisoners because of his race. We agree. The findings and recommendations of the magistrate express clearly and fully the factual basis and legal reasoning that serve as the predicate for these conclusions. They find full support in the record.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.