## Facts

- Troy Allen, a California state prisoner, was convicted in California state court of pimping under Cal. Penal Code § 266h(a).
- Allen used two women, Tyona Dodson and Shannan Bryant, as prostitutes and arranged trips for them to engage in prostitution in California and Nevada.
- Dodson and Bryant paid Allen a portion of their prostitution earnings for acting as their pimp.
- Police stopped Dodson and Bryant in California on suspicion of prostitution; during questioning, they admitted they were working for Allen as prostitutes.
- Allen was arrested and charged with pimping.
- A jury convicted Allen of pimping.
- Because Allen had four prior felony convictions for which he served prison terms, the state court sentenced him under California’s Three Strikes law to 54 years to life in prison.
- On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the California Supreme Court also affirmed.
- Allen filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- In his federal petition, Allen argued that California’s pimping statute was unconstitutional because it was facially overbroad and because it violated equal protection by treating pimping as a felony while other prostitution-related offenses are misdemeanors.

## Issues

1. Whether Cal. Penal Code § 266h(a) is facially overbroad under the First Amendment because it criminalizes deriving financial support from a prostitute’s earnings, allegedly reaching indirect or otherwise lawful economic conduct.
2. Whether classifying pimping as a felony while punishing other prostitution-related offenses as misdemeanors violates the Equal Protection Clause.

## Decision

- The district court denied Allen’s § 2254 habeas petition.
- The court rejected the facial overbreadth challenge to Cal. Penal Code § 266h(a), concluding the statute targets participation in and profit from illegal prostitution rather than a substantial amount of protected speech or other constitutionally protected activity.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim, applying rational-basis review and concluding the legislature could reasonably punish those who profit from and manage prostitution more severely than other participants or related misconduct.
- Because Allen did not show entitlement to relief under AEDPA’s limits on federal habeas review, the court left his state conviction and 54-years-to-life sentence intact.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state-court decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination.
- A facial First Amendment overbreadth claim requires a showing that a law prohibits a substantial amount of protected activity relative to its legitimate scope; laws aimed at criminal conduct generally are not facially invalid based on speculative or marginal applications.
- Speech integral to criminal conduct (including solicitations or arrangements for illegal transactions) is not protected by the First Amendment.
- When a statute neither burdens a fundamental right nor draws a suspect classification, equal protection review is deferential; the classification stands if any reasonably conceivable legitimate governmental purpose supports it.
- Legislatures may rationally treat those who profit from organizing or exploiting criminal prostitution as more culpable than those committing other prostitution-related offenses, and may impose harsher penalties accordingly.

## Conclusion

In Allen v. Stratton, the federal district court denied habeas relief to a California prisoner serving a three-strikes sentence for pimping, holding that California Penal Code § 266h(a) is not facially overbroad under the First Amendment and that treating pimping as a felony (even when some related prostitution offenses are misdemeanors) does not violate equal protection under rational-basis review.


Allen v. Stratton, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (2006)