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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?