Thomas v. Eaton

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 22, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ANGEL THOMAS, Case No. 3:22-cv-00033-BAS-BLM

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR 14 PATRICK EATON, Warden, et al., WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 15 Respondents. (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 16 APPEALABILITY 17 18 Petitioner Eric Angel Thomas (“Petitioner” or “Thomas”) is a state prisoner 19 proceeding pro se with an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). Thomas challenges his conviction in San Diego Superior Court 21 Case No. SCD282431 for transporting and possessing a controlled substance for sale. The 22 Court has read and considered the Petition, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities 23 in Support of the Petition (ECF Nos. 1, 1-2), the Answer and Memorandum of Points and 24 Authorities in Support of the Answer (ECF No. 10, 10-1), the Traverse and Memorandum 25 of Points and Authorities in Support of the Traverse (ECF Nos. 12, 12-1), the lodgments 26 and other documents filed in this case, and the legal arguments presented by both parties. 27 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Petition (ECF No. 1) and 28 1 DISMISSES the case with prejudice. The Court also DENIES a certificate of 2 appealability. 3 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4 Although a federal habeas court generally gives deference to state court findings of 5 fact and presumes them to be correct, a petitioner may rebut the presumption of correctness 6 by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) (2006); see also Parle v. 7 Fraley, 506 U.S. 20, 35–36 (1992) (holding findings of historical fact, including inferences 8 properly drawn from these facts, are entitled to statutory presumption of correctness). The 9 state appellate court recited the facts as follows: 10 On the afternoon of July 9, 2019, a police officer observed a vehicle driving northbound on 14th Street in the East Village of San Diego. The 11 vehicle accelerated from a stop sign at a high rate of speed, stopped at a second 12 stop sign, accelerated again, and drove at a high rate of speed through a third intersection. The vehicle swerved into another lane to avoid a pedestrian 13 standing in a crosswalk, then continued down the street and turned onto 14 another street.

15 The area was very congested with pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The 16 officer believed the driver violated the Vehicle Code’s basic speed law because driving with rapid acceleration at high speeds was unsafe for the 17 prevailing conditions of the area where a lot of pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, 18 and pedicabs were moving around the urban area. The police officer and his partner followed the vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. They drove in 19 excess of the posted 25-mile-per-hour speed limit to catch up to the vehicle. 20 Thomas was the driver and the sole occupant of the vehicle.

21 Before approaching the vehicle, the officer conducted a records check 22 and discovered Thomas was the registered owner and he was on PRCS, which meant he likely had a Fourth Amendment waiver. After Thomas confirmed 23 he was subject to supervision, the officers conducted a search based upon his 24 Fourth Amendment waiver condition.

25 Officers found $340 in small bills and a plastic bindle containing 2.3 26 grams of methamphetamine in Thomas’s pants pocket. In a backpack, they found two additional bindles holding 7.14 grams of methamphetamine along 27 with plastic baggies and a working digital scale. In another backpack, officers 28 located a glass container along with more baggies containing crystalline 1 material. In the center console of the vehicle, officers located 100 unused small zippered baggies with yellow biohazard logos. 2

3 Thomas did not appear to be under the influence of methamphetamine during the traffic stop and he did not exhibit physical characteristics of a heavy 4 methamphetamine user. A detective opined Thomas possessed the meth- 5 amphetamine for sale rather than personal use. 6 (Lodgment No. 5 at 3–4, ECF No. 11-13.) 7 II. ANALYSIS 8 A. Legal Standard 9 Thomas’s Petition is governed by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective 10 Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). Under 11 AEDPA, a habeas petition will not be granted with respect to any claim adjudicated on the 12 merits by the state court unless that adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary 13 to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law; or (2) resulted 14 in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 15 evidence presented at the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Early v. Packer, 16 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2002). In deciding a state prisoner’s habeas petition, a federal court is not 17 called upon to decide whether it agrees with the state court’s determination; rather, the 18 court applies an extraordinarily deferential review, inquiring only whether the state court’s 19 decision was objectively unreasonable. See Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 4 (2003); 20 Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 877 (9th Cir. 2004). 21 A federal habeas court may grant relief under the “contrary to” clause if the state 22 court applied a rule different from the governing law set forth in Supreme Court cases, or 23 if it decided a case differently than the Supreme Court on a set of materially 24 indistinguishable facts. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 694 (2002). The court may grant 25 relief under the “unreasonable application” clause if the state court correctly identified the 26 governing legal principle from Supreme Court decisions but unreasonably applied those 27 decisions to the facts of a particular case. Id. Additionally, the “unreasonable application” 28 clause requires that the state court decision be more than incorrect or erroneous—to warrant 1 habeas relief, the state court’s application of clearly established federal law must be 2 “objectively unreasonable.” See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). The Court 3 may also grant relief if the state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable 4 determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 5 Where there is no reasoned decision from the state’s highest court, the federal habeas 6 court “looks through” to the last reasoned state court decision and presumes it provides the 7 basis for the higher court’s denial of a claim or claims. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 8 797, 805-06 (1991). If the dispositive state court order does not “furnish a basis for its 9 reasoning,” federal habeas courts must conduct an independent review of the record to 10 determine whether the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application 11 of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th 12 Cir. 2000) (overruled on other grounds by Andrade, 538 U.S. at 75-76); accord Himes v. 13 Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th Cir. 2003). Clearly established federal law, for purposes 14 of § 2254(d), means “the governing principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court 15 at the time the state court renders its decision.” Andrade, 538 U.S. at 72. 16 B. Discussion 17 Thomas raises five grounds to justify his Petition. In ground one, he contends the 18 initial traffic stop of his car was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Pet. 6, ECF No. 19 1; Pet’rs Mem. of P. & A. 13–25, ECF No. 1-2.) In ground two, he claims the search of 20 his car and person violated the Fourth Amendment. (Pet. 7; Pet’rs Mem. of P. & A. 25– 21 39.) He argues in ground three that the state trial court improperly failed to review and 22 consider the suppression motion he made when he was representing himself. (Pet. 8; Pet’rs 23 Mem. of P. & A. 39–41.) In ground four, he claims the prosecutor improperly withheld 24 the transcript of his first suppression hearing, violating his due process rights. (Pet. 9; 25 Pet’rs Mem. of P. & A. 41–43.) And in ground five, Thomas argues his sentence is illegal 26 and violates his equal protection rights. (Pet. 10; Pet’rs Mem. of P. & A. 43–45.) 27 Respondent argues that grounds one through three of Thomas’s Petition are barred 28 by Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), which held that Fourth Amendment claims are 1 not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. (Answer 12–15, ECF No. 10-1.) As to 2 grounds four and five, Respondent contends the state courts’ denial of these claims were 3 neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court 4 law. (Id. at 17–21.) 5 1. Fourth Amendment Claims (Grounds One and Two) 6 In grounds one and two, Thomas contends his Fourth Amendment rights were 7 violated when police stopped his car without reasonable suspicion and proceeded to search 8 him and his car. (Pet. 6; Pet’rs Mem. of P. & A. 11–38; Pet’rs Mem. of P. & A. Traverse 9 14–15, ECF No. 12-1.) “[W]here the state has provided an opportunity for full and fair 10 litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas 11 corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure 12 was introduced at his trial.” Stone, 428 U.S. at 494; Woolery v. Arave, 8 F.3d 1325, 1326 13 (9th Cir. 1993); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 1990). Under California 14 law, Thomas had the opportunity to litigate, and in fact did litigate, the validity of his traffic 15 stop. (See Lodgment No. 2, vol. 1, ECF No. 11-2.) See also Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5; 16 Gordon, 895 F.2d at 613 (stating that “[w]hether or not [a defendant] did in fact litigate 17 [his] [F]ourth [A]mendment claim in state court, he did have the opportunity to do so” and 18 thus “the Constitution does not require that [a petitioner] be granted habeas corpus relief 19 on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was 20 introduced at his trial.”). Thomas also raised his Fourth Amendment claim on direct 21 appeal. (See Lodgment No. 5 at 4–8.) Thus, because Thomas had “an opportunity for full 22 and fair litigation of [his] Fourth Amendment claims” in state court, he is not entitled to 23 federal habeas relief. Stone, 428 U.S. at 494; Gordon, 895 F.2d at 613–14. 24 2. Due Process (Ground Three) 25 Thomas contends in ground three that his due process rights were violated when the 26 trial court judge denied the motion without reviewing the transcript of the original 27 suppression hearing. (Pet. 8; Mem. of P. & A. 39–41; Mem. of P. & A. Traverse 15–16.) 28 After his initial suppression motion was denied, Thomas began to represent himself. 1 (Lodgment No. 2, vol. 2.) He then filed a renewed motion to suppress pursuant to 2 California Penal Code § 1538.5. (Lodgment No. 2, vol. 3 at 5–6.) During the hearing on 3 pretrial motions, the judge asked Thomas why he should be permitted to renew the 4 suppression motion, noting no new evidence or law had been presented to justify a renewal. 5 (Id. at 8.) Thomas told the judge his attorney had not challenged the prosecution’s assertion 6 that the traffic stop was valid based on the officer’s testimony that Thomas had violated 7 the basic speed law. (Id. at 9.) The prosecutor told the judge that Thomas’s attorney had 8 in fact argued at the hearing that there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop 9 based on the basic speed law. (Id. at 9–10.) Relying on the prosecutor’s representation, 10 the judge denied Thomas’s request to renew his suppression motion, concluding that 11 Thomas had not presented any change in circumstances, nor any new evidence. (Id. at 10– 12 11.)1 13 Thomas raised this claim in the habeas corpus petition he filed in the California 14 Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 8, ECF No. 11-16.) The state supreme court summarily 15 denied the petition. (Lodgment No. 9, ECF No. 11-17.) Accordingly, this Court must 16 conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the state court’s decision 17 is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. 18 Himes, 336 F.3d at 853. 19 Although styled as a due process claim, Thomas is challenging the state court’s 20 denial of his renewed motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. As 21 discussed above, Fourth Amendment claims are not cognizable on federal habeas corpus 22 review where a petitioner, like Thomas, had a “full and fair’ opportunity to litigate the 23 claim. Stone, 428 U.S. at 494. Further, to the extent that Thomas is challenging the 24 25 1 The officer who stopped Thomas testified at the original suppression hearing that the reason for the stop was a violation of the basic speed law. (Lodgment No. 2, vol. 1 at 10, 17.) Defense counsel 26 questioned the officer thoroughly regarding his observations of Thomas’s driving and argued that there was insufficient evidence to support finding that the stop was reasonable in part because the officer could 27 not definitively state how fast Thomas was going. (Id. at 15–18, 20–24. ) The state court judge based her 28 ruling upholding the stop primarily on the officer’s testimony that he observed Thomas in violation of the 1 application of state law regarding the procedures for filing a renewed motion to suppress, 2 he is also not entitled to relief because federal habeas corpus relief is not available for errors 3 of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

4 In any event, the state court’s ruling was consistent with California Penal Code 5 § 1538.5. “As a general rule, a defendant is allowed only one pretrial suppression motion 6 under section 1538.5 in the superior court, and that court is without jurisdiction to hear a 7 second motion.” People v. Arebalos-Cabrera, 27 Cal. App. 5th 179, 191 (2018), quoting 8 People v. Nelson, 126 Cal. App. 3d 978, 981 (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 While the statute permits a new suppression motion at trial based on the discovery of new 10 evidence or a change in the law, “[i]t does not allow serial pretrial motions based on new 11 law or evidence.” Id. (citing People v. Williams, 93 Cal. App. 3d 40, 59–60 (1979) 12 (emphasis in original)). 13 For the foregoing reasons, the state court’s denial of this claim was neither contrary 14 to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. Bell, 535 15 U.S. at 694. Thomas is not entitled to relief as to this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 16 3. Failure to Provide Exculpatory Material (Ground Four) 17 In ground four, Thomas contends the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, 18 namely the transcript of the original suppression hearing, in violation of his federal due 19 process rights. (Pet. 9; Mem. of P. & A. 41–43; Mem. of P. & A. Traverse 16.) Thomas 20 raised this claim in the habeas corpus petition he filed in the California Supreme Court. 21 (Lodgment No. 8.) The state supreme court summarily denied the petition. (Lodgment 22 No. 9.) Thus, this Court again must conduct an independent review of the record to 23 determine whether the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application 24 of, clearly established Supreme Court law. Himes, 336 F.3d at 853. 25 In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held a prosecutor 26 must disclose all material evidence, including impeachment evidence, to the defendant. 27 Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. In order to establish a Brady violation, Thomas must prove three 28 elements: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution, either willfully or 1 inadvertently; (2) the withheld evidence was either exculpatory or impeachment; and (3) 2 the evidence was material to the defense. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 3 (1999); Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1052–53 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. 4 Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 678 (1985) and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110 5 (1976).) “Evidence is deemed prejudicial, or material, only if it undermines confidence in 6 the outcome of the trial.” Benn, 283 F.3d at 1053 (citing Bagley, 473 U.S. at 676 and 7 Agurs, 427 U.S. at 111–12). “Moreover, we analyze all of the suppressed evidence 8 together, using the same type of analysis that we employ to determine prejudice in 9 ineffective assistance of counsel cases.” Id. (citing Bagley, 473 U.S. at 682 and United 10 States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682, 688–89 (9th Cir. 1986).) “The question is not whether the 11 defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, 12 but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial resulting in a verdict 13 worthy of confidence.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1995). 14 Thomas has not established the elements of a Brady claim. He has not explained 15 what evidence the transcript of the suppression hearing contained that was either 16 exculpatory or impeachment. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281–82. Nor has he explained how 17 any such evidence “undermine[s] confidence in the outcome of [his] trial.” Benn, 283 F.3d 18 at 1053. The claim is based on speculation that the transcript contained exculpatory or 19 impeachment material. Therefore, the state court’s denial of this claim cannot be found to 20 have been contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court 21 law. Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. Thomas is not entitled to relief as to this claim. Id.; 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2254(d). 23 4. Sentencing (Ground Five) 24 Thomas alleges in ground five the sentence he received violates his federal due 25 process and equal protection rights. (Pet. 10; Mem. of P. & A. 43–45; Mem. of P. & A. 26 Traverse, 17–19.) Specifically, he claims the state court judge improperly sentenced him 27 to prison even though he was not subject to a mandatory prison sentence. (Pet. 10; Mem. 28 of P. & A. 43–45; Mem. of P. & A. Traverse 17–19.) Thomas raised this claim in the 1 habeas corpus petition he filed in the California Supreme Court. (Lodgment No. 8.) The 2 state supreme court summarily denied the petition. (Lodgment No. 9.) Thus, this Court 3 must again conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether the state 4 court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established 5 Supreme Court law. Himes, 336 F.3d at 853. 6 Thomas argues his sentence was illegal under California law because “[former] 7 California Penal Code § 1203.073(b)(2) is a statutory guideline that set the standard for the 8 amount of methamphetamine required for California courts to impose mandatory prison 9 sentence, which must be 28.5 grams or more.” (Mem. of P. & A. 43.) Errors in the 10 application of a state’s sentencing laws are generally not cognizable on federal habeas 11 review because they do not involve a federal question. See Nelson v. Biter, 33 F. Supp. 3d 12 1173, 1177 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (citing Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116, 1118–19 13 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, to the extent Thomas is challenging his sentence on state law 14 grounds, he is not entitled to relief as to this claim. Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67–68. 15 In any event, former section § 1203.073(b)(2) does not say what Thomas claims. 16 Former California Penal Code § 1203.073 (a) states, “[a] person convicted of a felony 17 specified in subdivision (b) may be granted probation only in an unusual case where the 18 interests of justice would best be served.” Cal. Penal Code § 1203.073 (repealed by Stats. 19 2021, c. 537 (S.B. 73), eff. Jan. 1, 2022). Subdivision (b) states, in pertinent part: 20 (b) Except as provided in subdivision (a), probation shall not be granted to . . .

21 . . . . 22 (2) Any person who is convicted of section 11378 of the Health 23 and Safety Code by possessing for sale, or Section 11379 of the 24 Health and Safety Code by selling a substance containing 28.5 grams or more of methamphetamine or 57 grams or more of a 25 substance containing methamphetamine. 26 27 Id. 28 1 The code section does not say that only violations of Health and Safety Code § 11379 2 which involve “28.5 grams or more of methamphetamine or 57 grams or more of a 3 substance containing methamphetamine” can be deemed felonies. The only application 4 § 1203.073 had to Thomas’s case was to make him presumptively ineligible for probation 5 because he was convicted of a violation of Health and Safety Code § 11378. (Lodgment 6 No. 2 vol. 7 at 5–6.) 7 Both of the Health and Safety Code violations Thomas was found guilty of, 8 § 11379(a) (transportation of a controlled substance) and §11378 (possession for sale of a 9 controlled substance), were felonies. (Lodgment No. 1 at 7–11, ECF No. 11-1; Lodgment 10 No. 2 vol. 7 at 5–6.) The sentencing range for a § 11379(a) conviction is two, three, or 11 four years in state prison. Cal. Penal Code § 11379(a). Thomas admitted he had a “strike” 12 prior conviction. (Lodgment No. 2, vol. 7 at 10 –11.) The strike prior had two effects on 13 Thomas’s sentence. First, it made him statutorily ineligible for probation pursuant to 14 California Penal Code § 667(c)(2)2 and § 1170.12(a)(2),3 and second it doubled the base 15 prison term he received pursuant to California Penal Code § 667(d)(1) and § 16 1192.7(c)(1)(19). The sentencing judge chose the upper term of four years, finding that 17 aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones, for a total of eight years, which is the 18 sentence he received. Cal. Penal Code § 1170.12(c)(1). (Lodgment No. 1 at 226–27; 19 Lodgment No. 2, vol. 8 at 15.) Thomas has not shown there was any error in his sentence, 20 much less an error which was “‘so arbitrary or capricious as to constitute an independent 21 due process’ violation.” Id. (citing Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 50, (1992).) 22 Accordingly, the state court’s denial of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an 23

24 2 California Penal Code § 667(c)(2) states, in pertinent part, “if a defendant has been convicted of 25 a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious or violent felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), . . . [p]robation for the current offense shall not be granted.” 26 Cal. Penal Code § 667(c)(2). 3 California Penal Code § 1170.12(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, “if a defendant has been convicted 27 of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior serious or violent 28 felony convictions, as defined in subdivision (b) . . . [p]robation for the current offense shall not be 1 unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. 2 Thomas is not entitled to relief as to this claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 3 Thomas also argues his sentence violated his equal protection rights. The Equal 4 Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons 5 similarly situated should be treated alike.” See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living 6 Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 799, (1997) (citing 7 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982) and Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940); 8 Fraley v. Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). To establish an 9 equal protection violation, a petitioner must first demonstrate “that the [challenged] statute, 10 either on its face or in the manner of its enforcement, results in members of a certain group 11 being treated differently from other persons based on membership in that group.” McLean 12 v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 1999). “Second, if it is demonstrated that a 13 cognizable class is treated differently, the court must analyze under the appropriate level 14 of scrutiny whether the distinction made between the two groups is justified.” Id. (citation 15 and quotations omitted). Unless a legislative classification warrants some form of 16 heightened review because it targets a suspect class or burdens the exercise of a 17 fundamental right, the Equal Protection Clause requires only that the classification be 18 rationally related to a legitimate state interest. See Vacco, 521 U.S. at 799. “Suspect or

19 quasi-suspect classes have four characteristics: (1) a history of discrimination; (2) a 20 defining characteristic that often bears a relationship to its ability to perform or contribute 21 to society; (3) a defining trait that is immutable or distinguishable and establishes it as a 22 discrete group; and (4) political powerlessness or minority status.” Calvary Chapel of 23 Ukiah v. Newsom, 524 F. Supp. 3d 986, 1005 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (citing Karnoski v. Trump, 24 926 F.3d 1180, 1192 (9th Cir. 2019)). 25 Thomas is not a member of a suspect class. See United States v. Whitlock, 639 F.3d 26 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that “neither prisoners nor ‘persons convicted of crimes' 27 constitute a suspect class for equal protection purposes”); see also Virgin Islands v. Hodge, 28 359 F.3d 312, 326 (3d Cir. 2004) (“The Supreme Court has not announced that the status 1 of ‘criminal defendant’ is a suspect classification[.]”). Thus, the three strikes statute, under 2 which Thomas was sentenced, need only be rationally related to a legitimate government 3 interest. Vacco, 521 U.S. at 799. “California has a valid ‘public-safety interest in 4 incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons.’” Gonzalez v. Duncan, 551 F.3d 875, 886 5 (9th Cir. 2008) (citating Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003); see also Parke v. 6 Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 27 (1992) (“States have a valid interest in deterring and segregating 7 habitual criminals.”); Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 296 (1983) (“State is justified in 8 punishing a recidivist more severely than it punishes a first offender.”). Sentencing certain 9 offenders who have previously committed serious or violent felonies to lengthier sentences 10 than other offenders is rationally related to that legitimate end. See Raley, 506 U.S. at 27 11 ((“[W]e have repeatedly upheld recidivism statutes ‘against contentions that they violate 12 constitutional strictures dealing with . . . equal protection . . . .’ ”) (citations omitted)). 13 Thomas cites to People v. Ramos, 244 Cal. App. 4th 99 (2016) as support for his 14 contention that his equal protection rights have been violated. (Mem. of P. & A. 44.) In 15 Ramos, Gloria Ramos was convicted of possessing 2.9 grams of methamphetamine for 16 sale, was granted probation, and ordered to serve 365 days in jail. Ramos, 244 Cal. App. 17 4th at 100–01. Thomas is not similarly situated to Ramos. Thomas had suffered a strike 18 prior which, as discussed above, made him statutorily ineligible for probation while Ramos 19 had not. Id. 20 For all the foregoing reasons, the state court’s denial of Thomas’s equal protection 21 claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established 22 Supreme Court law. Bell, 535 U.S. at 694. Thomas is not entitled to relief as to this claim. 23 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED. Rule 11 of the Rules Following 26 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require the District Court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability 27 [“COA”] when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 28 2254 (2019). A COA will issue when the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the 1 || denial of a constitutional night.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2019); Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 2 || 742 (9th Cir. 2005). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that ‘“‘reasonable 3 ||jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or 4 || wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 5 ||529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Here, the Court concludes Thomas has not made the required 6 || showing, and therefore a COA is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 DATED: June 22, 2022 /) . . Lin A (Lyohaa 6 10 How. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28