Michael Josef Brodheim v. James K. Rowland, Director, California Department of Corrections Ron Koenig

The district court ruled California’s statutory scheme for providing work credits to convicted murderers violates the equal protection clause. Brodheim v. Rowland, 783 F.Supp. 1245 (N.D.Cal.1991). The court’s interpretation of California law was expressly repudiated by In re Singer, 13 Cal.App.4th 1755 , 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 395 (6th Dist.1993). “We are bound by that state court’s construction of its own penal statute,” McSherry v. Block, 880 F.2d 1049, 1052 (9th Cir.1989), and may re-examine a state court’s interpretation of its own law only if “the court’s interpretation is untenable or amounts to a subterfuge to avoid federal review of a constitutional violation.” Taylor v. Kincheloe, 920 F.2d 599, 609 (9th Cir.1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S. 17, 22 , 40 S.Ct. 419, 421 , 64 L.Ed. 751 (1920). Singers interpretation of California law is straightforward and reasonable. There is no evidence of subterfuge.

Brodheim challenges the district court’s ruling that he has no due process right to continue earning one-for-one work credits under Cal.Penal Code § 2933. See 783 F.Supp. at 1248 . Brodheim has already received credit for…