Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00427/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00427-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY PETER RALBOVSKY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

M.C. KRAMER, Warden, et al, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-CV-0427 OWW SMS HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #12]

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. #1]

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 30, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be DENIED with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further recommended

that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to enter judgment. The Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days

of the date of service of the order. 

On September 16, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

Case 1:05-cv-00427-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

novo review of the case. In her Findings and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found no

constitutional error in the application of Cal. Penal Code § 2933.3 in Petitioner’s case. Having

carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered Petitioner’s objections on this point, the

Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the

record and proper analysis, and there is no need to modify the Findings and Recommendations based

on these points raised in the objections. 

In his objections, Petitioner also challenges the statute on its face. Statutes are ordinarily

challenged, and their constitutionality evaluated, "as applied," which is to say, a petitioner contends

that application of the statute in the particular context in which he has acted, or in which he proposes

to act, would be unconstitutional. This was the context in which the Magistrate analyzed Petitioner’s

claims. “The practical effect of holding a statute unconstitutional "as applied" is to prevent its future

application in a similar context, but not to render it utterly inoperative.” Ada v. Guam Society of

Obstetricians & Gynecologists, et. al., 506 U.S. 1011, 113 S.Ct. 633, 634 (1992) (Scalia, J., 

dissenting). In order to hold the entire statute utterly inoperative and unconstitutional “on its face,”

Petitioner must demonstrate that “there exists no set of circumstances in which the statute can

constitutionally be applied.” Id; see, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct.

2095, 2100 (1987) (a facial challenge is "the most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the

challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [rule] would be valid").

In addition, the Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that a statute “might operate

unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly

invalid,” since the Supreme Court has not recognized an overbreadth doctrine outside the limited

context of the First Amendment. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 745. "[C]ourts are not roving commissions

assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Nation's laws." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S.

601, 610-611, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915 (1973).

Here, Petitioner’s claim fails because he has not demonstrated that “there exists no set of

circumstances in which the statute can constitutionally be applied.” Ada, 113 S.Ct. at 634. In 1982,

the California Legislature determined that “productive work on a regular basis is the most

appropriate method of successfully instilling in prisoners the values of a law-abiding and cooperative

Case 1:05-cv-00427-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

society and will improve the possibility of their reintegration into that society." (Stats.1982, ch. 1, §

1, p. 1.) With this principle in mind, the Legislature enacted Cal. Penal Code § 2933 which allowed 

prisoners to receive six months of worktime credit for every six months of full-time performance in a

credit qualifying work, training or education program established by the Director of Corrections. In

2002, § 2933.3 was enacted which provides an additional day of worktime credit for every day of

service provided the inmate is a assigned to a conservation camp. 

Petitioner submits this new section was added “to reduce the bulging prison population, and

consequently effectuate a savings to the Department of Corrections’ budget.” See p. 4, Traverse. This

being the reason, the Court fails to see how providing an additional day of credit to qualifying

inmates would not reduce the prison population. Necessarily, an additional day of credit will result in

less incarceration for these qualifying inmates. This in turn will lessen the overall burden on the

institutions. Whether the impact is great or slight is of little significance. The purpose of the statute

is being accomplished. Petitioner argues that the beds at said conservation camps are always filled

and will always be filled; therefore, the intent cannot be realized. This argument is not persuasive

because it fails to take into account the effect the statute has on all prison populations, not only the

camps. The fact that an inmate is transferred to an available space when another inmate is released

does not show the statute to be ineffective. This is merely indicative of the known fact that California

prisons are overcrowded. 

Furthermore, the purpose behind the statute is a legitimate state interest. In addition, a

protected liberty interest is not at stake, and Petitioner has not shown the statute to be implemented

in such an arbitrary manner so as to invidiously discriminate on an unconstitutional basis such as

race, sex or alienage. In sum, Petitioner has not demonstrated that “there exists no set of

circumstances in which the statute can constitutionally be applied.” Ada, 113 S.Ct. at 634. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00427-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued August 30, 2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00427-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 10/12/05 Page 4 of 4