Johnson v. Jaquez

Filing 45

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

Download PDF
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?