Phillips v. Allison

Background

Eric Phillips, a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his exclusion from consideration for a recommendation that a California court recall and reduce his sentence. He also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

In 1995, an Alameda County Superior Court jury found Phillips guilty of second-degree murder, premeditated attempted murder, discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, and assault with a deadly weapon. The superior court imposed an indeterminate sentence of 38 years to life. In 2018, the California Board of Parole Hearings found him unsuitable for parole and set a five-year denial period.

Phillips later asked the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to recommend that the sentencing court recall and resentence him based on exceptional conduct in prison under California Penal Code section 1170(d)(1). His request and later appeals were denied because California regulations exclude certain indeterminately sentenced prisoners who are scheduled for a parole hearing from consideration for such a recommendation, regardless of the parole decision.

Claim and procedural history

Phillips argued that California Code of Regulations, Title 15, sections 3076, 3076.1, and 3076.2 violated equal protection by treating him differently from other indeterminately sentenced state prisoners. California state courts denied his habeas petitions, including a reasoned decision by the Alameda County Superior Court and summary denials by the state appellate and supreme courts.

The federal court explained that it may grant relief under section 2254 only when a person is held in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. At this initial stage, the court concluded that Phillips’s equal-protection claim appeared to be an “arguably colorable” claim—that is, a claim sufficient to require the respondent to address it.

Ruling

Judge Charles R. Breyer granted Phillips’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered the respondent to file and serve an answer complying with the rules for section 2254 cases within 60 days and to provide relevant portions of the previously transcribed state trial record. Phillips may file a reply within 30 days after receiving the answer.

The court also permitted the respondent to file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds instead of an answer. The order did not determine whether California’s exclusion rules violate equal protection, whether Phillips is entitled to resentencing, or whether the federal petition should ultimately be granted.