Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30937/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30937-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30937

Summary Calendar

EARL JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:14-CV-543

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Earl Johnson, Louisiana prisoner # 294324, proceeding pro se, challenges

the district court’s dismissal, as time barred, of his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

application in another proceeding, case number 2:12-CV-974. Johnson was 

convicted in state court of first-degree murder and sentenced to life 

imprisonment. He commenced this second federal-court proceeding with a 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-30937 Document: 00513584489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2016
No. 15-30937

document entitled “writ of mandamus”; the court determined he did not 

present a claim for mandamus relief. 

On appeal, Johnson renews his claims the prosecution suppressed 

favorable impeachment evidence, asserting the initial police report contained 

a statement from a witness who stated Johnson was playing spades at the time 

of the crime. He maintains this evidence presents a convincing claim of 

innocence to exempt him from the time-limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d) (imposing one-year limitation for application for writ of habeas 

corpus for person in custody pursuant to state-court judgment). Johnson 

further asserts: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate alibi 

witnesses, and he was arrested without a warrant.

Johnson does not claim he was entitled to mandamus relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 1651, or challenge the court’s declining to construe the “writ of 

mandamus” as a Rule 60(b) motion in his habeas proceedings. Accordingly, he

has abandoned these issues on appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); see Brinkmann v. 

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Therefore, he does not show the court erred in denying his writ of mandamus.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-30937 Document: 00513584489 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2016