Johnson v. Secretary of Corrections

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/17/2020. (amd2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ERIC JOHNSON, Petitioner, 12 13 14 15 No. C 20-4298 WHA (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. (Docket Nos. 4, 5) SECRETARY, Respondent. / 16 17 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas case under 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. While incarcerated, petitioner has violated prison rules against indecent 19 exposure on multiple occasions, and state authorities criminally prosecuted him and obtained 20 convictions for such behavior. In 2012, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition challenging 21 one of these convictions — from 2005. See Johnson v. Director, No. 12-6393 WHA (PR). 22 That federal petition was dismissed as untimely under the one-year limitations period 23 24 25 26 27 28 established by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) because there was a four-year gap between the end of his direct appeals and the filing of his federal petition. commencement of his collateral challenges to his conviction. In the instant petition, petitioner challenges a much older conviction for indecent exposure, from 1993. For the same reasons that the prior federal petition challenging a more recent state court conviction was untimely, the instant petition challenging an older conviction is untimely. Specifically, the direct appeals from the conviction challenged herein ended in 1 1994, 26 years before he filed the instant petition and 23 years after the expiration of the 2 limitations period for federal petitions filed prior to AEDPA’s enactment in 1996. See 3 Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001) (a prisoner with a state conviction 4 finalized before April 24, 1996, therefore had until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas 5 petition on time). And while petitioner did file habeas petitions in state court challenging the 6 conviction he challenges here, he did not do so until 2019, more than 20 years after the 7 limitations period had expired, and therefore they do not save the instant federal petition from 8 being untimely. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (state habeas 9 petition filed after AEDPA's statute of limitations ended cannot toll the limitations period). For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The request to proceed in 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 forma pauperis is GRANTED, in light of which the motions for a temporary restraining order 12 pertaining to trust fund documentation are DENIED as unnecessary. No certificate of 13 appealability is warranted in this case because a reasonable jurist would not find the dismissal 14 of this petition debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 15 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: November 18 17 , 2020. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG 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?