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
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?