Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04916/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04916-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

JOSEPH JOHNSON, JR., 

Petitioner,

v.

EDWARD FLORES; et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 05-4916 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Joseph Johnson, Jr., currently in custody in the Santa Clara County Jail, filed this pro se

action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge proceedings related

to his civil commitment under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"), see Cal.

Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

BACKGROUND

Johnson has been subjected to several civil commitment proceedings in the several years

since he completed his prison sentence in 1999. See Order Denying Respondent's Motion To

Dismiss, p. 1, in Johnson v. Hunter, No. 05-2064 SI. He was initially civilly committed under

the SVPA for a 2-year term starting in May 2000. Id. 

Johnson's habeas petition indicates the following basic procedural history: The state filed

a petition to recommit him for two more years starting in May 2002. Before the scheduled April

Case 3:05-cv-04916-SI Document 6 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

This information is taken from page 6 of Johnson's habeas petition, which purports to quote

Johnson v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 21 (2004). The case citation is wrong as there is no Johnson

v. Superior Court case at that page. For purposes of initial review, the court will accept that the

information Johnson provides is true. 

2

2004 trial on the 2002 petition occurred, the state filed another petition to recommit him for two

more years for the 2-year term starting in May 2004. The state then moved to consolidate the

2002 petition and the 2004 petition for trial. The trial court granted the motion. Johnson

petitioned for writ of mandate. The California Court of Appeal stayed proceedings pending its

review of the superior court's order consolidating the petitions for trial; eventually, the appellate

court granted the writ in November 2004, stating that the petitions should not have been

consolidated. The appellate court ordered that the order of consolidation be vacated, the 2002

petition be set for trial forthwith, and the probable cause hearing on the 2004 petition should be

commenced as expeditiously as possible.1

 

Johnson indicates in his habeas petition that his trial was held on the 2002 petition and

on September 5, 2005, he was found to be a sexually violent predator. Johnson further indicates

that the 2002 petition commitment period ended on May 23, 2004 -- more than a year before the

trial on the petition for the commitment occurred. The proceedings on the 2004 petition are now

underway, although Johnson does not indicate how far those proceedings have progressed. See

Petition, p. 7. He contends that his detention has been "unconstitutional since May 23, 2004,

the day the purpose for his detention under the May 2002 extended petition expired." Petition,

p. 16.

The overarching problem in the petition is the ambiguity as to which particular

commitment proceedings Johnson is trying to challenge, i.e., whether it is the proceedings

concerning the 2002 petition or the 2004 petition. The argument in his petition confusingly

veers back and forth between those proceedings.

Case 3:05-cv-04916-SI Document 6 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

DISCUSSION

This court may entertain a petition for 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); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas

corpus 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only

where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently

frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990).

The petition has several problems which require amendment. First, the court cannot

determine whether Johnson is challenging the proceedings on the 2002 petition or the

proceedings on the 2004 petition. He cannot challenge both in a single habeas petition. He

must file an amended petition identifying which of the proceedings he is challenging. His

amended habeas petition should challenge one of the two proceedings, but not both. If Johnson

wants to challenge both the proceedings on the 2002 petition and the proceedings on the 2004

petition, he must challenge one in his amended petition in this action and file a separate new

action with a separate petition to challenge the other. The two proceedings need to be

challenged in separate habeas petitions because each has different custody, exhaustion and

timeliness concerns. Additionally, each likely would have different relief, if relief was granted.

Second, Johnson makes a confusing mootness argument in his petition, which seems to

counsel against, rather than in favor of, this court hearing any challenge to the 2002 petition

proceedings. The court does not understand the purpose of including this argument, i.e., whether

it was intended as a claim for habeas relief or was included for some other reason. If he intends

it as a claim for relief, he needs to articulate the claim in an understandable way, such that his

argument explains why "mootness" would violate the constitution, laws or treaties of the United

States.

Case 3:05-cv-04916-SI Document 6 Filed 03/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Third, the petition appears to have an exhaustion problem as to some or all of the claims.

Johnson is cautioned that he must exhaust state court remedies as to all his claims that challenge

a judgment of a state court, such as may exist with regard to the proceedings on the 2002

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Johnson

must file an amended petition no later than April 21, 2006. This action will be dismissed if

Johnson does not file an amended petition by the deadline.

Johnson's request to proceed in forma pauperis as a non-prisoner is DENIED as

unnecessary because the filing fee has been paid. (Docket # 2.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04916-SI Document 6 Filed 03/07/06 Page 4 of 4