Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04467/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04467-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, No. CR 04-0163 PJH

 C 07-4467 PJH/07-5943 PJH

 

v. ORDER ON MOTIONS

DION LEROY JOHNSON,

Defendant and Movant.

_______________________________/

1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed September 6, 2007, in

C 07-4467 is DENIED based on the funds available in his prisoner account.

2. In response to petitioner’s September 24, 2007 letter in C 07-4467

requesting notification regarding the name of appointed counsel, the court advises

petitioner that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel does not apply in the instant postconviction proceedings. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Additionally, based on its review of petitioner’s filings, the court finds that the interests of

justice do not require the appointment of counsel in the instant proceedings. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(g). 

3. Petitioner’s November 9, 2007, motion to amend his 18 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

(erroneously titled a motion to amend a § 2241 petition) filed in C 07-4467 is DENIED. The

attached amended motion is duplicative of the § 2255 motions already filed in C 07-5943

and C 07-4467, and consolidated by this court’s January 15, 2008 order.

4. The court GRANTS petitioner’s November 9, 2007 letter request for copies of 

the original petition filed in C 07-4467 (formerly SBA, now PJH) and a copy of the current

Case 4:07-cv-04467-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

docket sheet for that case. The court directs the clerk of the court to provide petitioner with

those copies.

5. The court further notes that in addition to the § 2255 petitions filed in C 07-

4467 PJH and 07-5943 PJH, on November 9, 2007, petitioner filed a separate petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in case no. C 07-4467 requesting transfer back to the Northern

District of California from Beaumont, Texas. This petition which, unlike the other § 2255

petitions, challenges the execution of petitioner’s sentence is properly construed as a §

2241 petition. See United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Liberally construed, this claim appears colorable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and merits

an answer from respondent. The court has not yet issued an order to show cause as to

this petition. Accordingly, respondents shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, no

later than February 15, 2008, an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus

should not be issued as to petitioner’s § 2241 claim only. Respondent shall file with the

answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all portions of the record that are relevant to a

determination of the issues presented by the petition. If the petitioner wishes to respond to

the answer, he shall do so by filing a reply with the court and serving it on respondent no

later than March 17, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2008

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04467-PJH Document 13 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 2