Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05539/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05539-0/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

1

A third claim was dismissed for failure to state a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief.

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.06\johnsona2.mtd.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY E. JOHNSON, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

TONY MALFI, et al.,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

C 06-6376 MJJ (PR)

C 06-5539 MJJ (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS AND MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL;

TO CONSOLIDATE CASE NOS.

C 06-6376 MJJ (PR) AND C 06-

5539 MJJ (PR); DIRECTING

RESPONDENT TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER;

INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed two pro se habeas corpus petitions pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, Case Nos. 06-5539 MJJ and 06-6376 MJJ. In Case No. 06-5539 MJJ,

respondent was ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on the

five cognizable claims raised therein. Respondent filed an answer and petitioner filed a

traverse, and that case is currently pending. In Case No. 06-6376 MJJ, respondent was

ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted based on the two cognizable

claims raised therein.1

 Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the petition as a “second or

successive” petition. Although granted time to do so, petitioner has not filed an opposition to

Case 4:06-cv-05539-CW Document 15 Filed 12/14/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.06\johnsona2.mtd.wpd 2

the motion to dismiss. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner received two separate criminal judgments in the Sonoma County Superior

Court. In Sonoma County Superior Court case number SCR-31910 (hereinafter “SCR31910"), a jury found petitioner guilty of rape and robbery and other offenses in October

2002. In December 2002, in Sonoma County Superior Court case number SCR-31911

(hereinafter “SCR-31911"), a second jury found petitioner guilty of conspiracy and

solicitation to commit murder. On April 10, 2003, the trial court sentenced petitioner in both

cases to a term of 25 years plus 50 years to life in state prison. Petitioner challenged the two

judgments in a single appeal to the California Court of Appeal, which, in a single opinion,

affirmed the judgments in both cases. Petitioner filed a petition for review of the California

Court of Appeal’s decision in the California Supreme Court, which was denied on June 21,

2006. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss Case No. C 06-6376 MJJ

Respondent moves to dismiss Case No. 06-6376 MJJ on the grounds that is a second

or successive petition to petitioner’s earlier federal petition, Case No. 06-5539 MJJ. A

second or successive habeas petition challenging the same conviction or sentence must be

dismissed unless petitioner first obtains from the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit an order authorizing this court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. §§

2244(b)(2),(3). In Case No. 06-6376, petitioner challenges the conviction and judgment in

SCR-31911. (Petition in Case No. 06-6376 MJJ, at 2.) In his earlier federal petition, Case

No. 06-5539 MJJ, petitioner challenges a different state court conviction and judgment, from

SCR-31910. (Petition in Case No. 06-5539 MJJ, at 2.) The federal habeas petition filed in

Case No. 06-6376 MJJ should not be dismissed as a “second or successive” petition because

it challenges a different conviction and judgment than petitioner’s earlier-filed federal habeas

petition.

Respondent points to the fact that in petitioner’s earlier federal petition, in Case No.

Case 4:06-cv-05539-CW Document 15 Filed 12/14/07 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

2

In response to the same question in the form federal habeas petition in Case No. 06-6376 MJJ,

petitioner includes only case number SCR-31911 as the state sentence being challenged.

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.06\johnsona2.mtd.wpd 3

06-5539 MJJ, while petitioner’s first four claims pertained to SCR-31910, the fifth claim

pertained to SCR-31911, which is the state court case challenged in the federal petition filed

in Case No. 06-6376 MJJ. Respondent argues that this means that the federal petition in

Case No. 06-5539 MJJ challenged SCR-31911, in addition to SCR-31910, and therefore the

federal petition in Case No. 06-6376 MJJ, which also challenges SCR-31911, is a second or

successive petition. Respondent overstates the case with respect to the petition filed in Case

No. 06-5539 MJJ. In that petition, in response to the question “What sentence are you

challenging in this petition?,” petitioner includes only SCR-31910, not SCR-31911.2

(Petition in Case No. 06-5539 MJJ, at 2, §1(b).) The fact that the petitioner’s fifth claim

pertained to a different state court case means only that such claim cannot be the basis of

relief from the conviction in SCR-31910. It does not mean that the federal petition was also

a challenge to the conviction in SCR-31911. In light of petitioner’s clear intent, as evinced

by his answers in the form petitions, to challenge only SCR-31910 in Case No. 06-5539 MJJ

and to challenge only SCR-31911 in Case No. 06-6376, the Court will not infer an intent to

the contrary from petitioner’s apparently inadvertent inclusion of a fifth claim in Case No.

06-5539 MJJ that pertained to SCR-31911. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Case No. 06-

6376 MJJ as a second or successive petition is DENIED. 

B. Consolidation

As described above, although Case Nos. 06-6376 MJJ and 06-5539 MJJ each pertain

to different state court trials, convictions and judgments, and are therefore not successive,

both cases involved the same defendant, joint appeals and opinions in the California Court of

Appeal and the Supreme Court of California, and an overlapping set of facts and events. 

Accordingly, the Court finds the interests of justice, expediency, and judicial efficiency

would best be served by consolidating the two federal habeas petitions into a single case. 

The Court notes that, as discussed above petitioner’s fifth claim in the petition filed in Case

No. 06-5539 MJJ, pertains to SCR-31911, the state court conviction being challenged in the

Case 4:06-cv-05539-CW Document 15 Filed 12/14/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.06\johnsona2.mtd.wpd 4

petition filed in Case No. 06-6736 MJJ. In light of petitioner’s pro se status and lack of legal

training, the Court construes the claim as being inadvertently advanced in the petition filed in

Case No. 06-5539 MJJ, and the Court will consider such claim instead as part of the petition

filed in Case No. 06-6736 MJJ challenging SCR-31911. 

C. Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner has filed a request for appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment's

right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d

722, 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 867 (1986). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A(a)(2)(B), however, a district court is authorized to appoint counsel to represent a

habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so require and

such person is financially unable to obtain representation.” Petitioner’s claims have already

been adequately presented in the petitions and the state court briefs that are part of the record

in this case. If the Court ascertains a need for assistance of counsel at a later stage of this

litigation, the Court will sua sponte issue an order appointing counsel. At this time, the

interests of justice do not require such appointment, and petitioner’s motion is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders:

1. The motion to dismiss and the motion for appointment of counsel in Case No.

C 06-6376 MJJ are DENIED. 

2. Case Nos. C 06-5539 MJJ and C 06-6376 MJJ are CONSOLIDATED. All

matters previously raised in either Case No. C 06-5539 MJJ or Case No. C 06-6376 MJJ shall

now proceed and be considered only in Case No. C 06-5539 MJJ, and all filings by the

parties as to such matters shall indicate in the caption Case No. C 06-5539 MJJ (PR). 

3. Within sixty (60) days, respondent shall file a supplemental answer in Case

No. 06-5539 MJJ addressing the two claims that the Court identified as cognizable in the

January 3, 2007 Order to Show Cause in Case No. C 06-6376 MJJ. If petitioner wishes to

file a supplemental traverse, he must do so within thirty (30) days of the date the

supplemental answer is filed. The parties shall comply with all provisions of the January 3,

Case 4:06-cv-05539-CW Document 15 Filed 12/14/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.06\johnsona2.mtd.wpd 5

2007 Order to Show Cause in Case No. C 06-6376 MJJ not inconsistent with this order. 

4. The Clerk shall close the file in Case No. C 06-6376 MJJ (PR), terminate all

pending motions in that case, including Docket Nos. 13 & 15, and consolidate Case Nos. C

06-5539 MJJ (PR) and C 06-6376 MJJ (PR). The Clerk shall file a copy of this order in both

Case Nos. C 06-5539 MJJ (PR) and C 06-6376 MJJ (PR). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 12/12/07

 MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05539-CW Document 15 Filed 12/14/07 Page 5 of 5