Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01527/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01527-4/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

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VASILLIS SAKELLARIDIS,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE DAVEY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01527-LJO-GSA-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 21)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 14)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On April 9, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation that 

recommended that Respondent’s motion to dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 21). On April 9, 2015, 

the Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties. Petitioner filed two objections to 

the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF Nos. 22 & 23). Respondent did not file objections or 

a reply to Petitioner’s objections. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 

this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

The Magistrate Judge found that credit restoration on Log # 3C-13-04-021 is a collateral 

consequence that flows from the disciplinary conviction on Log # 3C-13-05-004 that causes the 

instant petition to remain justiciable. (ECF No. 21 at 7). Therefore, the Magistrate Judge found 

that the case is not moot and recommended denying Respondent’s motion to dismiss. The Court 

Case 1:14-cv-01527-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

finds that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis that the credit restoration on Log # 3C-13-04-021 is a 

collateral consequence that causes the instant petition to remain justiciable is correct and does 

not need to be modified. As the Magistrate Judge found that there is a collateral consequence 

that flows from the disciplinary conviction on Log # 3C-13-05-004, the instant petition remains 

justiciable. 

Petitioner argues that his placement in work group C, which caused him to be ineligible 

for credit accrual, rises to the level of a collateral consequence sufficient for the case to remain 

justiciable. (ECF No. 23 at 1).1 The Magistrate Judge found that the fact that Petitioner was 

placed in work group C and unable to earn work time credits for 180 days is not a sufficient 

collateral consequence that causes the case to remain justiciable. (ECF No. 21 at 4). 

Section 3040(a) of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations states that “[e]very 

ablebodied” prisoner is obligated to work and/or obtain an education. Such prisoners are placed 

in a specific work group, designated A-1, A-2, B, C, D-1, and D-2. Section 3044 of Title 15 of 

the California Code of Regulations provides that Work Group C is Disciplinary Unassigned and 

is for “any inmate who twice refuses to accept assigned housing, or who refuses to accept or 

perform in an assignment, or who is deemed a program failure as defined in section 3000, shall 

be placed in Work Group C for a period not to exceed the number of disciplinary credits 

forfeited due to the serious disciplinary infraction(s).” When Petitioner was placed in workgroup 

C, he was denied the privilege of participating in work programs and accruing credits during that 

time. 

Petitioner is correct that California Penal Code § 2933 was amended in 2010. The Ninth 

Circuit has concluded that Section 2933 does not create a liberty interest in earning worktime 

credits. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 1986) (concluding that 

“[S]ection 2933 merely creates a possibility of early release; it does not create a constitutionally 

protected liberty interest.”); Kalka v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 546, 547 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding that 

 

1 The Court notes that because the Court has already concluded that the petition is justiciable, it is inconsequential 

whether placement in work group C is a collateral consequence sufficient to keep the case justiciable. However, the 

Court will also review the Magistrate Judge’s findings on Petitioner’s argument that his placement in work group C 

is a collateral consequence sufficient for the case to remain justiciable.

Case 1:14-cv-01527-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

appellant’s due process challenge concerning his accrual of work time credits was foreclosed by 

Toussaint); Franklin v. Knowles, 428 F. App’x 777, 778 (9th Cir. 2011) (state court’s denial of 

due process challenge to credit accrual statute “was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable 

application of, clearly established federal law...California prisoners do not have a protected 

liberty interest in earning work time credits.”). The Ninth Circuit has not decided whether the 

current version of Section 2933 creates a liberty interest. Section 2933 of the California Penal 

Code still provides that “[c]redit is a privilege, not a right.” Therefore, Petitioner has no 

protected liberty interest in earning such credits under California Penal Code § 2933 and 

Petitioner’s placement in work group C is not a collateral consequence that is sufficient for a 

habeas petition to remain justiciable. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 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 Recommendation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued April 9, 2015, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is DENIED; and 

3. The matter is REFERRED BACK to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01527-LJO-EPG Document 25 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 3