Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01671/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01671-2/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

 The sentence was based on the convictions and a finding that petitioner had sustained

1

two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of California Penal Code §§ 667(b)(-(1)

and 1170.12. (See Exs. C and D to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 6, 2003.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE DANIEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-02-1671 GEB JFM P

vs.

JOE McGRATH, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1999 conviction on

charges of being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, driving under the influence of alcohol or

drugs, and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher, and the sentence of twenty-five

years to life in prison imposed thereon under California’s Three Strikes Law. Petitioner claims 1

violations of his constitutional rights by ineffective assistance of counsel, unlawful sentencing

procedures, prosecutorial misconduct, denial of right to jury trial with respect to his prior

convictions, and insufficient evidence to support the conviction.

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 80 Filed 08/16/06 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

 Petitioner has also filed a motion for court-ordered service of the December 2, 2005 2

motion to amend on counsel for respondent. Petitioner has not shown that he was unable to

properly serve the motion to amend on counsel for respondent. His motion for court-ordered

service thereof will therefore be denied.

 Petitioner’s first motion was filed May 24, 2005 and denied by order filed March 8, 3

2006.

2

On January 28, 2005, petitioner filed a request for an evidentiary hearing. This

court finds no basis in the record for an evidentiary hearing in this matter. Petitioner’s request

will therefore be denied.

Petitioner has filed three motions to amend his traverse. By the first two 2

motions, filed November 22, 2005 and December 2, 2005, petitioner seeks primarily to add

documents and arguments relevant to another conviction that he sustained in Yolo County. That

conviction is not at issue in these proceedings. For that reason, petitioner’s first two motions to

amend his traverse will be denied. The proposed supplemental traverse filed January 6, 2006,

that is the subject of the third request to amend, does include documents that may be relevant to

disposition of petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, petitioner’s December 8, 2006 request to amend

his traverse will be granted and the supplemental traverse submitted January 6, 2006 deemed

properly filed as of that date.

Finally, on June 6, 2006, petitioner filed a second motion for appointment of

counsel. There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas 3

proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice

so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court still

does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the

present time. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s January 28, 2005 request for an evidentiary hearing is denied;

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 80 Filed 08/16/06 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

3

2. Petitioner’s November 22, 2005 motion to amend his traverse is denied;

3. Petitioner’s December 2, 2005 motion to amend his traverse is denied;

4. Petitioner’s December 2, 2005 motion for court-ordered service on the

California Attorney General is denied;

5. Petitioner’s December 8, 2005 request for leave to amend his traverse is

granted; 

6. Petitioner’s proposed supplemental traverse, submitted January 6, 2006, is

deemed filed as of that date; and

7. Petitioner’s June 6, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel is denied.. 

DATED: August 16, 2006.

12

john1671.o

Case 2:02-cv-01671-GEB -JFM Document 80 Filed 08/16/06 Page 3 of 3