In Re Jenkins
116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790
Cal.2010Background
- Jenkins, a 1993 second-degree murder convict with a firearm enhancement, became parole-eligible in 2005 and was in CDCR custody.
- He transferred to High Desert State Prison in 2005 and was not assigned to a work program for a period, then later placed in an educational program.
- An annual classification review in 2006 reduced his score by 4 points for lack of discipline and added 2 points for average/above-average work performance during a period he was in a program, but denied 2 additional points because he was unassigned for roughly half the period.
- He challenged the denial of the full 4 points on the basis that the disruption to his work-qualifying status was not his fault and thus he should receive full credit.
- Superior Court granted relief, ordering a 2-point reduction and custody adjustments; the warden appealed, and the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court.
- California Supreme Court held that the regulation § 3375.4(a)(3)(B) requires actual assignment and performance to credit favorable points, and that the decision to deny points under disruption was rational and valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 3375.4(a)(3)(B) under due process | Jenkins contends the regulation is invalid. | State argues deference to prison administration and rational basis for the regulation. | Regulation valid; rational, not arbitrary. |
| Whether actual assignment is required for work-credit points versus willingness | Willingness with nonfault disruption should count toward credit. | Credit requires actual assignment and performance. | Actual assignment and performance required; willingness alone not enough. |
| Effect of Player on the case | Player supported credit during unassigned periods. | Player is distinguishable; not controlling here due to statutory/regulatory structure. | Player disapproved to the extent inconsistent with this decision; § 3375.4(a)(3)(B) governs. |
| Equal protection or other constitutional challenges | Dissenting arguments of irrational classification based on assignment status. | Classification has rational basis; deference to prison officials. | Not unconstitutional; rational basis upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pell v. Procunier, 418 U.S. 817 (1974) (courts defer to prison administrators on internal security matters)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison administration involves expert judgment and judicial restraint)
- In re Wilson, 202 Cal.App.3d 661 (1988) (deference to classification decisions; some evidence standard for review)
- In re Farley, 109 Cal.App.4th 1356 (2003) (some evidence standard applicable to classification actions)
- In re Lusero, 4 Cal.App.4th 572 (1992) (broad state regulation authority over prison discipline/classification)
- In re Richards, 16 Cal.App.4th 93 (1993) (classification score system explained and applied)
- In re Player, 146 Cal.App.4th 813 (2007) (linkage of work credits to favorable classification; questioned by this opinion)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (2010) (equal protection/due process scrutiny standards; evidentiary hearing not required for rational questions)