Gary Johnson v. Craig Koenig
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-07371
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Gary Johnson v. Craig Koeing, Judge Freeman dismissed the parole challenge without prejudice for failing to finish state review and denied a stay.
Gary Johnson’s federal challenge to the denial of parole was dismissed without prejudice, and his motion to pause the case was denied; the order permits refiling after state judicial remedies are exhausted.
What happened
Gary Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. His request for review in the California Supreme Court was still pending when he filed the federal case.
The court said he had to give California’s highest court a fair opportunity to decide every claim before seeking federal review. Because that process was incomplete, the court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. It also found that a stay was unnecessary because the federal filing deadline was paused while his state petition remained pending.
In Gary Johnson v. Craig Koeing, Judge Beth Freeman dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing refiling after state judicial remedies are exhausted, and denied the motion for a stay and abeyance.
The detailed version
- Gary Johnson v. Craig Koenig · No. 5:20-cv-07371
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 8, 2021
Background
Gary Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of parole. The parole denial followed a suitability hearing on October 24, 2019. Johnson paid the filing fee and also asked the court to pause the federal case while he pursued state-court review.
Johnson first filed a state habeas petition in the state superior court, which denied it. He then filed another petition in the state appellate court, which denied it on June 22, 2020. He filed a petition in the California Supreme Court on July 9, 2020, and that petition was still pending when he filed the federal action.
Exhaustion of State Remedies
Federal law generally requires a state prisoner challenging the fact or length of confinement—including a parole denial—to present each federal claim to the highest available state court before seeking federal habeas review. The court concluded that Johnson had not completed that process because his petition remained pending in the California Supreme Court.
Motion for Stay
The court also denied Johnson’s request for a stay and abeyance. It explained that the federal one-year filing period for challenges to administrative decisions was being paused while his state habeas petition was pending. The court therefore found no apparent risk that the federal filing deadline would expire while the California Supreme Court considered his petition.
Disposition
The court dismissed the federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling after Johnson exhausted those remedies, including after the state supreme court issued a decision denying relief. Judge Beth Freeman denied the motion for stay and abeyance, terminated Docket No. 3, and directed the clerk to close the file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.