Johnson v. Price

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 6/17/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

RODWICK JOHNSON,

13

Petitioner,

14

vs.

15

PRICE,

16

Respondent.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 14-1592 JSW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; GRANTING
LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 2)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, has filed a
habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the denial of his habeas
petitions in all three levels of the California courts. The application to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED.
This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application
that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243.

1

Petitioner’s state court petitions sought transcripts of pretrial hearings from his

2

criminal proceedings. Petitioner claims: (1) that the superior court violated his right to

3

due process by denying his request for transcripts, which denial was based on petitioner’s

4

inadvertently indicating on the request form that he sought transcripts of the trial, not of

5

the pretrial proceedings; (2) that the state courts should have given him leave to amend

6

his petition; and (3) that the California Supreme Court erred in denying the petition on

7

procedural grounds.

8

The latter two claims are not cognizable because they simply assert errors in the

9

state courts’ collateral review process. Errors in the state post-conviction review process

10

are not addressable through federal habeas corpus proceedings. See Ortiz v. Stewart, 149

11

F.3d 923, 939 (9th Cir. 1998). The first claim is also not cognizable. Petitioner states

12

that in his habeas petition to the superior court, he checked the wrong box on the form.

13

Specifically, he checked the box for trial transcripts, instead of the box for transcripts of

14

pretrial hearings. While an indigent prisoner, such as petitioner, has a constitutionally

15

protected right to transcripts for use in an appeal or post-conviction challenge to his or

16

her conviction, see Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 (1971); Long v. Dist.

17

Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 194-95 (1966) (per curium), petitioner can file another

18

habeas petition in the superior court with the proper box checked. Until he does so,

19

seeking federal habeas relief for the denial of transcripts is premature. If the superior

20

court denies his request for pretrial transcripts with the form properly filled out, and that

21

denial is subsequently upheld by the higher state courts, petitioner can then file a new

22

federal habeas petition. The instant petition is, therefore, DISMISSED without

23

prejudice.

24

Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires a district

25

court to rule on whether a Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability in the

26

same order in which the petition is decided. Petitioner has failed to make a substantial

27

showing that a reasonable jurist would find this Court's denial of his claim on procedural

28

2

1

grounds debatable or wrong. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

2

Consequently, no certificate of appealability is warranted in this case.

3

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

DATED: June 17, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

RODWICK JOHNSON,

Case Number: CV14-01592 JSW

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8
9
10

v.
PRICE et al,
Defendant.

/

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on June 17, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

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

Rodwick Johnson C-39197
DVI Tracy
P.O. Box 600
Tracy, CA 95378-0600
Dated: June 17, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk