Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04417/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04417-0/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

Order of Partial Dismissal and to Show Cause 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Johnson417osc.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE RANDEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

ANTHONY KANE, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4417 JF (PR)

ORDER OF PARTIAL

DISMISSAL AND TO SHOW

CAUSE 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why

the petition should not be granted. 

STATEMENT

Petitioner was convicted in Monterey County Superior Court of attempted robbery,

assault, drug possession, and assault with intent to commit great bodily harm. Sentence

enhancements for prior “strike” convictions were found to be true, and the trial court

sentenced petitioner to a term of 50 years to life plus eight years and six months in state

prison. Petitioner appealed his conviction, and the state appellate court affirmed. His

petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied. Petitioner thereafter filed

Case 5:07-cv-04417-JF Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and to Show Cause 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Johnson417osc.wpd 2

a petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court, which was

denied. Finally, petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A district 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); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court 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. 

B. Petitioner’s Claim

Petitioner presents the following claims for relief: (1) the application of

California’s “Three Strikes” laws to Petitioner’s prior convictions violated his rights

under the Due Process and Ex Post Facto clauses of the federal constitution; (2) the trial

court violated Petitioner’s right to due process by finding petitioner competent to stand

trial; (3) the trial court violated Petitioner’s right to due process by admitting “tainted”

testimony against Petitioner; (4) Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel, in

violation of his Sixth Amendment rights; (5) the trial judge assisted the prosecutor during

trial, in violation of Petitioner’s right to due process; (6) the trial court violated

Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to sever the trial of two incidents unrelated to

Petitioner’s case; (7) the trial court violated Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to

consider California Proposition 36 in connection with the sentence on County 9; and (8)

there was insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s conviction on Counts 2 and 4, in

violation of Petitioner’s right to due process. 

Petitioner’s first claim is not cognizable. The application of an enhancement due

to a prior conviction is not a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States

Constitution. See McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311, 312-13 (1901); Fong v.

Case 5:07-cv-04417-JF Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 Page 2 of 5
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and to Show Cause 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Johnson417osc.wpd 3

United States, 287 F.2d 525, 526 (9th Cir.1961); see also United States v. Sorenson, 914

F.2d 173, 174 (9th Cir. 1990) (dismissing ex post facto challenge as meritless). The

enhancement is not a penalty for the prior offense. See McDonald, 180 U.S. at 312-13. It

is the repetitive nature of the present offense that the enhancement punishes. See id. 

Moreover, if the present crime occurred after the enactment of the statute, priors which

occurred before the enactment of the statute may be used to enhance the sentence for the

present crime. See Fong, 287 F.2d at 526. Consequently, Petitioner’s first claim will be

dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. 

Liberally construed, Petitioner’s remaining seven claims are sufficient to require a

response. The Court orders Respondent to show cause why the petition should not be

granted.

CONCLUSION 

1. Petitioner’s first claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim

for relief. 

2. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all 

attachments thereto upon Respondent and Respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of

the State of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on the Petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within sixty

days of the issuance of this order, an answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should

not be granted based on the second through eighth claims in the petition. Respondent

shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a copy of all portions of the state trial

record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of

the issues presented by the petition. 

If Petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving a copy on Respondent within thirty days of his receipt of the

answer.

4. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of

Case 5:07-cv-04417-JF Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 Page 3 of 5
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

Order of Partial Dismissal and to Show Cause 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Johnson417osc.wpd 4

an answer, as set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. If Respondent files such a motion, Petitioner shall file

with the court and serve on Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition

within thirty days of receipt of the motion, and Respondent shall file with the Court and

serve on Petitioner a reply within fifteen days of receipt of any opposition.

5. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep 

the Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper

captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” Petitioner must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/29/08 JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04417-JF Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Order to Show Cause 

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.Jf\HC.07\Johnson417osc.wpd 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Joe Randel Johnson 

V-46926 

California State Prison - CTF 

P.O. Box 705 

Soledad, CA 93960 

Case 5:07-cv-04417-JF Document 2 Filed 03/03/08 Page 5 of 5