Johnson v. Jacquez

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 06/20/13 ordering petitioner shall notify this court no later than 07/12/13, of the status of his state court habeas proceedings. In the event that the 05/22/13 petition was intended for the Cal ifornia Supreme Court, but inadvertently mailed to this court, in addition to providing notice of the status of his state habeas proceedings, petitioner shall file a habeas petition containing his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court no later than 07/12/13. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JASON WILBERT JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:09-cv-2108 JAM EFB P

vs.
FRANCISCO JACQUEZ,
Respondent.

ORDER
/

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

17

U.S.C. § 2254. On September 13, 2010, the undersigned recommended that petitioner’s motion

18

to stay the case pending the exhaustion of his unexhausted claims be granted; that petitioner be

19

directed to file a state habeas petition containing his unexhausted claims within 30 days, and that

20

petitioner be directed to inform the court within 30 days after his claims were exhausted in state

21

court. Dckt. No. 22. On October 13, 2010, petitioner filed a copy of his California Superior

22

Court habeas petition on this court’s docket. Dckt. No. 24.

23

On March 2, 2011, the assigned district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and

24

recommendations in full, granted petitioner’s motion to stay, and ordered petitioner to file a state

25

habeas petition containing his unexhausted claims within 30 days. Dckt. No. 27. Petitioner was

26

also ordered to inform the court within 30 days after his claims had been exhausted in state court.
1

1

On March 21, 2011, petitioner filed a request for copies of his petition and exhibits filed with

2

this court. Dckt. No. 31. On June 8, 2011, the undersigned granted petitioner’s request for

3

copies. In the same order, petitioner was ordered to file his state court petition within forty-five

4

days. Dckt. No. 34. Petitioner was reminded that he is required to inform the court within 30

5

days after his claims are exhausted in state court. Id. On January 13, 2012, the undersigned

6

again reminded petitioner that he is required to inform the court within 30 days after exhausting

7

his state court remedies. Dckt. No. 37.

8
9

On May 22, 2013, petitioner filed with this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Dckt. No. 38. The petition, however, is addressed to the Supreme Court of California. The

10

proof of service attached to the petition is addressed to the “Supreme Court,” but contains the

11

address for the United States District Court in Sacramento. It is not clear whether petitioner

12

intends his May 22, 2013 filing to act as notice to this court that he has exhausted his state

13

remedies, or whether he inadvertently mailed his state habeas petition to this court.

14

Accordingly, petitioner shall notify this court no later than July 12, 2013, of the status of

15

his state court habeas proceedings. In the event that the May 22, 2013 petition was intended for

16

the California Supreme Court, but inadvertently mailed to this court, in addition to providing

17

notice of the status of his state habeas proceedings, petitioner shall file a habeas petition

18

containing his unexhausted claims in the California Supreme Court no later than July 12, 2013.

19
20

So ordered.
Dated: June 20, 2013.

21
22
23
24
25
26
2