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)

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