Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00726/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00726-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Steven Morgan
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

JOHN STEVEN MORGAN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

RODNEY K. MITCHELL, Sheriff,

Respondent. 

JOHN STEVEN MORGAN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

 BRIAN MARTIN, Sheriff,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-6477 CRB (PR)

No. C 15-0726 CRB (PR)

ORDER

On December 27, 2007, John Steven Morgan, while incarcerated at the

Lake County Jail on a parole violation, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 1998 conviction from Lake County

Superior Court. See Morgan v. Mitchell, No. 07-6477 CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed

Dec. 27, 2007). But unfortunately for him, on December 15, 2008, the petition

was dismissed as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Morgan did not appeal.

Case 3:15-cv-00726-CRB Document 7 Filed 03/25/15 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

On February 17, 2015, Morgan, while incarcerated again at the Lake

County Jail on an apparent new parole violation, submitted to the court for filing

what appeared to be a new habeas petition challenging the 1998 conviction from

Lake County Superior Court. The petition was filed as a new habeas action. See

Morgan v. Martin, No. C 15-0726 CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 17, 2015). But

because the petition was not submitted on the court’s form and was not

accompanied by the requisite filing fee or a completed application to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP), the court gave Morgan 28 days to file the petition on the

proper form and to pay the requisite filing fee or file a completed IFP application. 

On March 9, 2015, Morgan instead filed a letter informing the court that

he intended to file the new petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rather

than “again” with this court. Dkt. #6 at 1. He also requests a certificate of

appealability (COA) to the Ninth Circuit. 

Good cause appearing therefor, the new petition is construed as a notice of

appeal of the December 15, 2008 dismissal of Morgan’s habeas petition in

Morgan v. Mitchell, No. 07-6477 CRB (PR). The clerk is instructed to close

Morgan v. Martin, No. 15-0726 CRB (PR), as improvidently opened, and to file

Morgan’s new petition (dkt. #1) as a notice of appeal in Morgan v. Mitchell, No.

07-6477 CRB (PR). The notice of appeal shall be deemed filed on February 17,

2015 (the date on which it was filed as a new petition) and a copy of this order

shall be filed in both Morgan v. Martin, No. 15-0726 CRB (PR), and Morgan v.

Mitchell, No. 07-6477 CRB (PR).

A COA is DENIED because Morgan has not made “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Morgan has not

demonstrated that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason

Case 3:15-cv-00726-CRB Document 7 Filed 03/25/15 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

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Nor has Morgan

demonstrated that he is entitled to an extension of time to appeal.

The clerk shall forward to the Ninth Circuit the case files with this order. 

See United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.15\Morgan, J.15-0726.dismissal.wpd

Case 3:15-cv-00726-CRB Document 7 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 3