Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02986/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02986-4/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

16cv2986-WQH-NLS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN GARY THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC ARNOLD, Warden,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16cv2986-WQH-NLS

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of two Reports and Recommendations 

issued by the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 14, 26) with respect to a Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Steven Gary Thomas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (ECF No. 1). 

I. BACKGROUND

On December 7, 2016, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced 

this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner asserts that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a crime 

committed at the age of twenty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner further asserts that he is entitled to habeas 

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 29 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

16cv2986-WQH-NLS

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

relief because California Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801(c) violate the equal protection 

clause.1

On January 23, 2017, the Court issued an Order requiring a response to the Petition. 

(ECF No. 6). 

On March 22, 2017, Respondent Eric Arnold filed an answer to the Petition. (ECF 

No. 8). 

On April 19, 2017, Petitioner filed a traverse. (ECF No. 13). 

On June 2, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Court deny the Petition. (ECF No. 14). The 

Report and Recommendation states that Petitioner “raises a single ground for relief, 

namely, that his sentence of life without the possibility of parole, for a crime he committed 

while aged 20, violates the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual 

punishment.” Id. at 1. The Report and Recommendation concludes that the state court’s 

sentencing decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law or an unreasonable 

application of clearly established federal law. Id. at 4–5. The Report and Recommendation 

states, “Petitioner’s claim is reliant on federal law addressing protections afforded to 

juveniles. Clearly established federal law continues to define a juvenile as a person under 

age 18, excluding Petitioner whose crime was committed at age 20.” Id. at 8. 

On July 10, 2017, Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 15). Petitioner stated, “California’s application of SB 2612 would violate the 

 

1 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 

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 29 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

16cv2986-WQH-NLS

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

equal protection clause and prohibition of disproportionate sentences (both 8th amendment 

violations) by excluding youth offenders under age 23 sentence to LWOP from parole 

consideration under California law (SB 261).” Id. at 7. Petitioner argued that the Report 

and Recommendation “failed to address the arguments under the equal protection clause 

and the disproportionality of the sentence in this case created by SB 261.” Id. 4–5. 

On November 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order requiring Respondent to file a 

response to the Objection. (ECF No. 23). On November 7, 2017, Respondent filed a reply. 

(ECF No. 24). 

On November 22, 2017, this Court issued an Order referring this matter to the 

Magistrate Judge for consideration of the equal protection issue raised in Petitioner’s 

Objections.3(ECF No. 25). 

On January 3, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a second Report and 

Recommendation addressing the equal protection claim. (ECF No. 26). The Magistrate 

Judge again recommends that the Court deny the Petition because Petitioner fails to state 

an equal protection claim and is not entitled to relief. The Report and Recommendation 

concludesthat the equal protection claim is procedurally defaulted because Petitioner could 

have but failed to raise the claim on appeal and has failed to establish any cause and 

prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice sufficient to overcome the default. The

Report and Recommendation also concludes that the equal protection claim fails on the 

merits. The Report and Recommendations states “Petitioner fails to establish that he is 

similarly situated to 18–23 year olds who were convicted of other crimes but not sentenced 

to LWOP.” Id. at 11. Further, the Report and Recommendation concludes that Petitioner 

 

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). 

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 29 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

16cv2986-WQH-NLS

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

is not part of a suspect class and that Senate Bills 291 and 394, codified at California Penal 

Code section 3051, are rationally related to California’s interest in public safety. The 

Report and Recommendation states, “Here, the California legislature could rationally 

conclude that the state had a compelling interest in enhancing public safety by deciding 

that prisoners whose crimes were committed when they were over the age of 18 and serious 

enough to receive a sentence of LWOP should not be eligible for parole.” Id. at 13.

The Magistrate Judge stated that any objections to the Report and Recommendation 

must be filed no later than January 16, 2018 and that any replies must be filed no later than 

January 26, 2018. Id. at 14. On February 1, 2018, the Court granted Petitioner an extension 

of time to file objections. (ECF No. 28). The record reflects that no objections have been 

filed and the filing deadline set by the Court has now passed. 

II. RULING OF THE COURT 

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation of a 

magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in 

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The 

district court need not review de novo those portions of a Report and Recommendation to 

which neither party objects. See Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 

2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 

(“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to 

review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as 

correct.”).

The Court has reviewed the two Reports and Recommendations, Petitioner’s 

objections to the initial Report and Recommendation, the record, and the submissions of 

the parties. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that neither the

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 29 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

16cv2986-WQH-NLS

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

Eighth Amendment claim, nor the equal protection claim provided grounds for habeas 

relief. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly recommended that the Petition 

for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed with prejudice. The Reports and 

Recommendations are adopted in their entirety. (ECF Nos. 14, 26). 

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 

appeal from a final order in a section 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability 

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” A certificate of appealability should 

be issued only where the petition presents “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “[T]he district court shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the standard for issuing a certificate, or state its reasons why 

a certificate should not be granted.” United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 

1997). A certificate should issue where the prisoner shows that jurists of reason would 

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right, and whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. See Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

The Court finds that Petitioner has raised colorable, nonfrivolous arguments with 

respect to both the Eighth Amendment and equal protection claims. The Court grants a 

certificate of appealability with respect to both claims for relief. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 29 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

16cv2986-WQH-NLS

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

IV. CONCLUSION 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 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. 

Dated: March 22, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-02986-WQH-NLS Document 29 Filed 03/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6