Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 17, 2020

Johnson v. Secretary of Corrections

Judge
William Alsup
Docket
3:20-cv-04298
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Secretary, Judge Alsup dismissed Eric Johnson’s habeas petition as untimely, granted fee waiver, and denied related motions as unnecessary.

Who this affects

Eric Johnson’s federal challenge to his 1993 state conviction was dismissed as untimely; his request to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted, and his temporary-restraining-order motions were denied as unnecessary.

What happened

Eric Johnson, a California prisoner representing himself, challenged a 1993 state conviction for indecent exposure in a federal petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court noted that the federal filing came decades after the conviction and after the deadline for challenging it had expired.

The court explained that Johnson’s state habeas petitions, filed in 2019, did not revive or pause the expired federal deadline. It also considered an earlier federal petition challenging a different conviction, which had been dismissed as untimely.

In Johnson v. Secretary, Judge William Alsup dismissed the petition, granted Johnson’s request to proceed without paying filing fees, denied his motions for a temporary restraining order as unnecessary, and found that no certificate allowing an appeal was warranted.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Johnson v. Secretary of Corrections · No. 3:20-cv-04298
Judge
William Alsup
Date
Nov. 17, 2020

Background

Eric Johnson, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged a state conviction for indecent exposure from 1993.

The court referred to an earlier federal petition in which Johnson had challenged a different conviction from 2005. That earlier petition had been dismissed as untimely under the one-year filing limit established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, commonly called AEDPA, because four years had passed between the end of direct appeals and the filing of the federal petition.

Timeliness ruling

The court held that the present petition was also untimely. It stated that the challenged conviction became final before AEDPA took effect in 1996, giving Johnson until April 24, 1997, to file a timely federal petition. Johnson did not file this petition until 2020, more than two decades after that deadline.

The court also stated that Johnson’s state habeas petitions challenging the conviction, filed in 2019, did not save the federal petition from being untimely because they were filed after the federal limitations period had already expired.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition. It granted Johnson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because of that ruling, it denied as unnecessary his motions for a temporary restraining order concerning trust-fund documentation.

The court found that no certificate of appealability was warranted because a reasonable judge would not find the dismissal debatable or wrong. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. Judge William Alsup signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.