Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04127/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04127-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODWICK JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

J. PRICE,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-4127 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS; TO SHOW CAUSE

(Dkt. No. 11)

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 constitutionality of

his conviction from 2007 in Monterey County Superior Court for kidnapping and

robbery. He claims that his guilty plea to those charges was not knowing and voluntary

because of his mental incompetence, and the trial court violated his right to due process

by accepting his plea without conducting a competency hearing. He also claims that trial

counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately investigate Petitioner’s mental

incompetence to go to trial. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2244(b)(3) because it is a second or successive petition. A second or successive petition

Case 4:15-cv-04127-JSW Document 14 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 3
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

challenging the same state court judgment may not be filed in federal district court unless

the petitioner first obtains from the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this Court to

consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner two previous federal

habeas petitions, Johnson v. Neoitti, No. C 10-3133 JSW (PR), and Johnson v. Price, No.

C 14-1592 JSW (PR), challenged a state court decision to deny him transcripts of his

criminal proceedings, which is not the same state court judgment challenged here. As

such, the instant petition is not a “second or successive” petition, within the meaning of

Section 2244(b)(3), to Petitioner’s two prior federal habeas petitions. 

Even the most cursory review of the prior petitions reveals that they challenged

the denial of transcripts, not the 2007 conviction and sentence, and yet Respondent has

failed to mention or address this issue in his motion. In his reply brief, Respondent

asserts that the 2010 petition included claims challenging the voluntariness of his 2007

guilty plea and the effectiveness of his trial counsel. This assertion is wrong. 

Respondent offers as support for this assertion only the unexplained and

incomprehensible citation “CR 1.” Whatever that citation means, there is only one claim

in the 2010 petition: that the state courts he was improperly denied transcripts of the

sentencing proceedings. Johnson v. Neoitti, No. C 10-3133 JSW (PR), ECF No. 1 at 6-

8.) He explains that he needs the transcripts in order to support the claims that

Respondent describes, see id. at 8:22-9:4, 9:26-11:4, but at no point in his 2010 petition

does he indicate that he is bringing those claims or challenging the 2007 conviction or

sentence itself. 

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. 

2. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on Petitioner, within ninety-one

(91) 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. Respondent shall file with the answer and serve on Petitioner a

Case 4:15-cv-04127-JSW Document 14 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 3
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

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 it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of the date the answer is filed.

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

the Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned “Notice

of Change of Address.” He 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: May 24, 2016 JEFFREY S. WHITE

 United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04127-JSW Document 14 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 3