Johnson v. Samuelson
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Johnson v. Samuelson, Judge Swain denied Johnson’s federal challenge to her conviction because her state appeal was still pending.
Jinja J. Kyng Pariah Johnson’s federal challenge to her New York conviction was denied without prejudice because her direct state-court appeal was still pending. The ruling did not decide the merits of her claims.
What happened
Jinja J. Kyng Pariah Johnson filed a federal petition challenging her 2023 New York conviction after pleading guilty to attempted criminal possession of a firearm. She alleged double jeopardy, denial of due process, and lack of jurisdiction. Her direct appeal in New York state court was still pending.
The court ruled that Johnson had not completed the required state-court review before seeking federal relief. It denied her petition without prejudice as unexhausted and prematurely filed, meaning the opinion did not decide whether her claims were correct. The court also denied permission to amend the petition.
Judge Swain entered the dismissal. She also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied Johnson’s fee-waiver status for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Samuelson · No. 1:24-cv-00126
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
Jinja J. Kyng Pariah Johnson, who was incarcerated at Albion Correctional Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her 2023 conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. She alleged that she pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a firearm in satisfaction of all charges and received a sentence of three years’ incarceration and five years’ post-release supervision.
The petition raised claims that Johnson was subjected to double jeopardy, denied due process, and convicted by a court that lacked jurisdiction. Documents attached to the petition showed that Johnson had filed a timely direct appeal in the New York Appellate Division, First Department. That appeal had not been decided, and the time to perfect it had been extended while counsel obtained the complete record.
Exhaustion ruling
Before a federal court may grant relief under § 2254, a state prisoner generally must give the state courts a full opportunity to review the federal claims through the state’s established appellate process. Because Johnson’s direct appeal was pending, the court determined that she had not exhausted her state remedies. The court therefore denied the petition without prejudice as unexhausted and prematurely filed. The court did not reach the merits of Johnson’s double-jeopardy, due-process, or jurisdiction claims.
The court explained that the dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits and therefore did not prevent Johnson from filing a new § 2254 petition after state-court review, subject to the applicable one-year limitations period.
Other rulings
The court denied leave to amend because amending the petition could not cure the exhaustion problem at that time. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judgment was ordered.
Result
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the § 2254 petition without prejudice, denied leave to amend, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.