
    Jimmie STEPHEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert W. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-55324
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Jimmie Stephen, Pro Se
    Michael G. Lagrama, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jimmie Stephen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2010 decision by the Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing for five years in accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss.

This court issued a certificate of appeal-ability (“COA”) on whether application of Marsy’s Law to delay Stephen’s next parole hearing for five years violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 580 U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 645, 196 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); Phelps v. Alameda, 366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Stephen from pursuing conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

We treat Stephen’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the COA. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 224(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     