Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01012/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01012-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry P. Contero
Petitioner
Jeanne S. Woodford
Respondent

Document Text:

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

LARRY P. CONTERO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01012-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 8)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK 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 February 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recomended the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendations were served

on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that

order. On March 10, 2006, 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 novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

Case 1:05-cv-01012-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 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

objections, the court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Except for one point,

the court finds the Findings and Recommendations adequately address

Petitioner's objections and no further discussion of Petitioner's

claims and objections is necessary. 

The court does note that in the objections, Petitioner

contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to address his due

process claim. Petitioner contends that this action is not about

his equal protection rights. Rather, Petitioner argues that he has

a liberty interest in earning "halftime" credits pursuant to

California Penal Code § 2933 because Petitioner completed the ISTIP

program.

 In order to state a due process claim, Petitioner must show

that a constitutionally protected liberty interest is implicated.

Baumann v. Arizona Dept. of Corrections, 754 F.2d 841, 844 (9th

Cir. 1985). A state may create a constitutionally protected

liberty interest if it establishes regulatory measures that impose

substantive limitations on the exercise of official discretion.

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 470-71 (1983). Contrary to

Petitioner's assumption, California has not created a protected

liberty interest in earning credits pursuant to Section 2933. See

California Penal Code § 2933 ("[w]orktime credit is a privilege,

not a right"); Kalka v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 546, 547 (9th Cir.1989)

("section 2933 does not create a constitutionally protected liberty

interest"); Touissant v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1094-95 (9th

Cir.1986) ("[e]xamination of section 2933 leads to the conclusion

Case 1:05-cv-01012-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 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

that prisoners have no right to earn the one-for-one worktime

credits provided by that section). In addition, Section 2934,

which provides for waivers, cannot serve as the basis of a liberty

interest in work credits. Miller v. Rowland, 999 F.2d 389, 392

(9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner simply has no constitutional right to

earn credits. Because Petitioner has not shown a violation of the

Federal Constitution, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus

relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (habeas corpus available for

violations of the Constitution or federal law.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed February 27, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01012-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 3