Johnson v. Jaquez

Filing 45

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RONDELL JOHNSON,

9

Petitioner,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13

No. C 10-416 SI (pr)
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

v.
Warden JAQUEZ,
Respondent.
/

14

This action was stayed and administratively closed so that petitioner could exhaust state

15

court remedies as to several of the claims in the petition. After petitioner exhausted state court

16

remedies, the court lifted the stay and set a briefing schedule on the five cognizable claims.

17

See Order Reopening Action, Lifting Stay and Setting Briefing Schedule (Docket # 39), pp. 1-4.

18

The court later noted that petitioner had filed a document that caused confusion as to whether

19

he had additional claims, and permitted him "to file an 'amendment to amended petition' in which

20

he identifies any additional claims he wants the court to consider (other than those identified as

21

cognizable in the April 20, 2012 Order.)." Order Regarding Further Amendment (Docket # 42),

22

p. 2. Petitioner then filed an "Amendment to Amended Petition" (Docket # 44) that identified

23

no additional cognizable federal claims.

24

This action is now ready to proceed with only the following claims:

25

First, Johnson alleges that his right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to
confront witnesses were violated when he "was viewed and identified in an unfair
suggestive lineup. " Docket # 37-2, p. 2.

26
27
28

Second, Johnson alleges that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of
counsel in that he did not assert a "delayed arraignment" argument, apparently in
connection with a challenge to the lineup. Id. at 10. Johnson alleges that if he had been
arraigned "before the physical lineup[,] he would have had [an] attorney represent him

1

at and before the physical lineup," who would monitor the lineup and prevent the
perceived unfairness in it. Id.

2
3
4

Third, Johnson contends he was "denied fair and independent [appellate] review,
because a pro tem justice on the Court of Appeal panel" that decided his case was a
superior court judge from the same county and courthouse in which his trial was held.
Id. at 12. This claim appears to be a claim for judicial bias in violation of his rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See id. at 13.

5
6

Fourth, Johnson contends he was denied his right to a prompt arraignment before
the lineup. Id. at 15.

7

Fifth, Johnson contends he was denied counsel at the physical lineup. Although

8

Johnson does not have a separately numbered claim that he was denied counsel at the lineup, the
claim is made within the text of his first and fourth claims. See id. at 6, 15-16.

9

Docket # 39, pp. 1-2. All other claims are dismissed.

10

In order to move this action toward resolution, the court now sets the following briefing

11

schedule on the five claims remaining for adjudication: Respondent must file and serve his

12

response no later than September 28, 2012. Petitioner must file and serve his traverse no later

13

than November 2, 2012.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 23, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2