Thomas v. Arnold
Filing
29
ORDER: The Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 14 , 26 ) are Adopted in their entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is Denied. A certificate of appealability is granted with respect to both the Eighth Amendment and equal protection claims for relief. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 03/22/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ajs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
STEVEN GARY THOMAS,
Case No.: 16cv2986-WQH-NLS
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER
ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,
Defendants.
15
16
HAYES, Judge:
17
The matter before the Court is the review of two Reports and Recommendations
18
issued by the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 14, 26) with respect to a Petition
19
for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Steven Gary Thomas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 2254 (ECF No. 1).
21
I.
BACKGROUND
22
On December 7, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced
23
this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
24
Petitioner asserts that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a crime
25
committed at the age of twenty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of
26
the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner further asserts that he is entitled to habeas
27
28
1
16cv2986-WQH-NLS
1
relief because California Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801(c) violate the equal protection
2
clause.1
3
4
On January 23, 2017, the Court issued an Order requiring a response to the Petition.
(ECF No. 6).
5
6
On March 22, 2017, Respondent Eric Arnold filed an answer to the Petition. (ECF
No. 8).
7
On April 19, 2017, Petitioner filed a traverse. (ECF No. 13).
8
On June 2, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
9
Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the Petition. (ECF No. 14). The
10
Report and Recommendation states that Petitioner “raises a single ground for relief,
11
namely, that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole, for a crime he committed
12
while aged 20, violates the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual
13
punishment.” Id. at 1. The Report and Recommendation concludes that the state court’s
14
sentencing decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law or an unreasonable
15
application of clearly established federal law. Id. at 4–5. The Report and Recommendation
16
states, “Petitioner’s claim is reliant on federal law addressing protections afforded to
17
juveniles. Clearly established federal law continues to define a juvenile as a person under
18
age 18, excluding Petitioner whose crime was committed at age 20.” Id. at 8.
19
On July 10, 2017, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation.
20
(ECF No. 15). Petitioner stated, “California’s application of SB 2612 would violate the
21
22
1
27
The Petition only briefly references this equal protection claim. Petitioner further develops this argument
in his Objections filed in response to the first Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge.
2
Senate Bill 261 (“SB 261”) amended California Penal Code section 3051, effective January 1, 2016. See
Cal. Pen. Code § 3051. Following SB 261, California Penal Code section 3051 provided, in certain
circumstances, for a youth offender parole hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of
reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was under 23 years of age at the time of his or her
controlling offense. Cal. Pen. Code § 3051(a)(1). Effective January 1, 2018, amendments to Penal Code
section 3015 extended that age requirement to prisoners under the age of 25. The statute does not apply
28
16cv2986-WQH-NLS
23
24
25
26
2
1
equal protection clause and prohibition of disproportionate sentences (both 8th amendment
2
violations) by excluding youth offenders under age 23 sentence to LWOP from parole
3
consideration under California law (SB 261).” Id. at 7. Petitioner argued that the Report
4
and Recommendation “failed to address the arguments under the equal protection clause
5
and the disproportionality of the sentence in this case created by SB 261.” Id. 4–5.
6
On November 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order requiring Respondent to file a
7
response to the Objection. (ECF No. 23). On November 7, 2017, Respondent filed a reply.
8
(ECF No. 24).
9
On November 22, 2017, this Court issued an Order referring this matter to the
10
Magistrate Judge for consideration of the equal protection issue raised in Petitioner’s
11
Objections.3 (ECF No. 25).
12
On January 3, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a second Report and
13
Recommendation addressing the equal protection claim. (ECF No. 26). The Magistrate
14
Judge again recommends that the Court deny the Petition because Petitioner fails to state
15
an equal protection claim and is not entitled to relief. The Report and Recommendation
16
concludes that the equal protection claim is procedurally defaulted because Petitioner could
17
have but failed to raise the claim on appeal and has failed to establish any cause and
18
prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome the default. The
19
Report and Recommendation also concludes that the equal protection claim fails on the
20
merits. The Report and Recommendations states “Petitioner fails to establish that he is
21
similarly situated to 18–23 year olds who were convicted of other crimes but not sentenced
22
to LWOP.” Id. at 11. Further, the Report and Recommendation concludes that Petitioner
23
24
27
to those who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a controlling offense
committed after the person had attained 18 years of age. Cal. Pen. Code § 3051(h).
3
In his Petition, Petitioner challenged his sentence primarily on Eighth Amendment grounds. The
Answer, Traverse, and Report and Recommendation address the Eighth Amendment claim. However,
Petitioner references the equal protection clause in his Petition. (ECF No. 1).
28
16cv2986-WQH-NLS
25
26
3
1
is not part of a suspect class and that Senate Bills 291 and 394, codified at California Penal
2
Code section 3051, are rationally related to California’s interest in public safety. The
3
Report and Recommendation states, “Here, the California legislature could rationally
4
conclude that the state had a compelling interest in enhancing public safety by deciding
5
that prisoners whose crimes were committed when they were over the age of 18 and serious
6
enough to receive a sentence of LWOP should not be eligible for parole.” Id. at 13.
7
The Magistrate Judge stated that any objections to the Report and Recommendation
8
must be filed no later than January 16, 2018 and that any replies must be filed no later than
9
January 26, 2018. Id. at 14. On February 1, 2018, the Court granted Petitioner an extension
10
of time to file objections. (ECF No. 28). The record reflects that no objections have been
11
filed and the filing deadline set by the Court has now passed.
12
II.
RULING OF THE COURT
13
The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a
14
magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. §
15
636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
16
report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
17
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The
18
district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to
19
which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir.
20
2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)
21
(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to
22
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as
23
correct.”).
24
The Court has reviewed the two Reports and Recommendations, Petitioner’s
25
objections to the initial Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of
26
the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that neither the
27
28
4
16cv2986-WQH-NLS
1
Eighth Amendment claim, nor the equal protection claim provided grounds for habeas
2
relief. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Petition
3
for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice.
4
Recommendations are adopted in their entirety. (ECF Nos. 14, 26).
5
III.
The Reports and
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
6
A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an
7
appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §
8
2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing
9
Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability
10
when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should
11
be issued only where the petition presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a
12
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[T]he district court shall indicate which
13
specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why
14
a certificate should not be granted.” United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir.
15
1997). A certificate should issue where the prisoner shows that jurists of reason would
16
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
17
right, and whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v.
18
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
19
The Court finds that Petitioner has raised colorable, nonfrivolous arguments with
20
respect to both the Eighth Amendment and equal protection claims. The Court grants a
21
certificate of appealability with respect to both claims for relief.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
5
16cv2986-WQH-NLS
1
IV.
CONCLUSION
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 14,
3
26) are ADOPTED in their entirety. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)
4
is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is granted with respect to both the Eighth
5
Amendment and equal protection claims for relief.
6
Dated: March 22, 2018
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
16cv2986-WQH-NLS
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?