Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01935/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01935-1/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 - 05cv1935

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK JAMES CARRIZOSA, JR.,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 05CV1935 IEG (LSP) 

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITIONER’S 18 U.S.C. § 2254

PETITION WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 1)

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Patrick James Carrizosa, Jr.’s (“Petitioner’s”) amended petition

for a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner claims the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) wrongfully denied his request for conduct

credits (a/k/a “behavioral credits”) and limited Petitioner to worktime credit equal to 15% of his

sentence. 

The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Papas issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), concluding

this Court should dismiss the petition on the merits. After considering the Report and Petitioner’s

objections, this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Papas’s Report with respect to Petitioner’s due

process and estoppel claims and denied Petitioner’s Petition with respect to these claims with

prejudice. With respect to the remaining equal protection claim, the Court requested supplemental

briefing. (Doc. No. 40.) 

After receiving supplemental briefing from the parties, the Court, unsatisfied with

Case 3:05-cv-01935-IEG-LSP Document 56 Filed 08/25/08 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

1

All citations are to the California Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

- 2 - 05cv1935

Respondent’s cursory explanation for apparent disparities in credit earnings as to similarly situated

inmates, ordered Respondent to show cause why the Petition should not be granted and requested

specific explanations regarding apparent inequities in the awarding of worktime credit amongst

similarly situated inmates. 

Having received Respondent’s answer to the Order to Show Cause and Petitioner’s reply, the

Court DISMISSES the Petition.

DISCUSSION1

Petitioner’s equal protection claim is based upon an allegation that CDCR is arbitrarily issuing

credits at different amounts to similarly situated inmates participating in the facility’s inmate work

program. Specifically, Petitioner claims that persons convicted of violent felonies are being issued

conduct/behavioral credits despite CDCR’s claim that these inmates are only entitled to worktime

credits subject to 15 percent cap imposed by Cal. Penal Code § 2933.1. In support, Petitioner has

provided the Legal Status Summary (“LSS”) forms of several inmates which show the accumulation

and loss of credit. 

 In this Court’s order following the magistrate judge’s report, the Court observed that if the

CDCR is allowing violent felons to obtain credits in excess of the 15 percent cap imposed by section

2933.1 became effective, then Petitioner may be able show that he is treated differently. This Court

identified several LSS forms which apparently demonstrated such treatment. Specifically, the Court

identified LSS forms belonging to Thomas Joseph Lynch, Charles Clemans, and Richard Woerner,

all violent felons who had apparently been awarded release credits in excess of the 15 percent cap.

The Court requested supplemental briefing to allow Respondent to address the LSS sheets.

In response to the Court’s request for supplemental briefing, Respondent argued that the LSS

forms establish that: (1) Petitioner is not similarly situated to former inmate Lynch since Lynch’s

felonies were not enumerated in Cal. Penal Code § 667.4(c) as violent felonies at the time of Lynch’s

offense conduct in 1995; and that (2) neither Clemans nor Woerner would receive more than a

maximum of 15% credit towards their sentences as demonstrated by the minimum adjusted release

dates calculated on forms submitted to the Court. 

Case 3:05-cv-01935-IEG-LSP Document 56 Filed 08/25/08 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

- 3 - 05cv1935

The Court found Respondent’s supplemental briefing failed to adequately address the Court’s

observation in its September 28, 2007 Order that the LSS forms of both Woerner and Clemans indicate

the two inmates were issued release credits in excess of 15% of their sentences. Specifically, the

Court failed to find an explanation as to why the “Assess” columns on the LSS forms for inmates

Woerner and Clemans summed to a value greater than 15% of each inmate’s sentence. Accordingly,

the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not

be granted and asked Respondent for further explanation regarding the LSS forms for inmates

Woerner and Clemens. 

Respondent’s response to the Order to Show Cause has clarified this crucial point, explaining

the “Assess” column on the LSS forms in the Court’s record does not reflect credits earned, but rather

credits which have been deducted from an inmate. Respondent’s explanation is supported by the

calculation worksheets submitted with respect to the Court’s September 27, 2007 order (see Doc. No.

43, Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,

Ex. F., pg. 9, where “Assess” column entries are placed in section c of the work sheet for “credit

losses.”) and the Chronological History Report lodged in connection with Respondent’s response to

the Order to Show Cause (see Doc. No. 53, Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause, Ex. J.).

Petitioner’s reply does not challenge Respondent’s claim that Thomas Lynch is not similarly

situated to petitioner nor Respondent’s definitions or calculations with respect to the LSS forms of

inmates Woerner or Clemans. 

Rather, Petitioner reiterates the argument he has made in several previous filings, which is that

regardless of the 15% limitation on the accrual of worktime credits contained in § 2933.1(a),

Respondent has been issuing, taking, and returning behavioral conduct credits to inmates similarly

situated to Petitioner while denying those credits to the Petitioner such that those inmates are

effectively earning credits which total to more than 15% of those inmates’ sentences. 

The LSS forms for similarly situated inmates Woerner and Clemans—upon the unchallenged

clarifications offered by the Respondent—simply provide no basis for Petitioner’s claim that he is

being inequitably denied the ability to earn credits beyond the 15% statutory limitation. The forms

indicate both Woerner and Clemans have been restricted to earning credits equal to 15% of their

Case 3:05-cv-01935-IEG-LSP Document 56 Filed 08/25/08 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

2

A certificate of appealability ‘is not required when a state prisoner challenges an

administrative decision regarding the execution of his sentence.’” Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229,

1231 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir. 2004)). Because

petitioner challenges a decision made by CDCR (i.e., an administrative body) rather than a court,

petitioner does not need a certificate of appealability from this Court. Id. at 1231-32.

- 4 - 05cv1935

sentence and no more. Further, as the Court has previously explained, section 2933.1 does not allow

an inmate to accumulate behavioral credits after placement in custody of the Department of

Corrections. Section 2933.1 eliminated good behavior credits for defendants committing crimes on

or after January 1, 1983 and substituted only worktime credits for participation in qualifying programs.

(See Doc. No. 40, Court’s September 27, 2007 Order.) 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Equal Protection Claim is DENIED and Petitioner’s Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:05-cv-01935-IEG-LSP Document 56 Filed 08/25/08 Page 4 of 4