In re Thomas

Filed 5/18/06  In re Thomas CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

     The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) appeals from a final order granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus in favor of petitioner Robert Thomas, which directs the Department to award Thomas two-for-one worktime credits pursuant to Penal Code section 2933.3^[1] for the period after January 1, 2003, that he had a work assignment at the Minimum Support Facility (MSF) at Folsom State Prison.  The court premised its decision on equal protection grounds, finding that Thomas was similarly situated to inmates assigned to conservation camps, who are expressly entitled to receive the two-for-one credits pursuant to section 2933.3.  We conclude the evidence was inadequate to support the court's conclusion that Thomas was similarly situated to conservation camp prisoners because the latter risked fighting forest fires while Thomas did not.  Consequently, we reverse the trial court's order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     Thomas filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the failure to award him two-for-one credits for his work assignment at MSF constituted a denial of equal protection of law.  He alleged that prisoners assigned to MSF performed the same work as (and thus were similarly situated to) prisoners assigned to conservation camps, who received two-for-one credits pursuant to section 2933.3, which provides in part:  â€