1 2 3 4 5 6 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 ERIC JOHNSON, No. C 20-4298 WHA (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 12 v. 13 (Docket Nos. 4, 5)

SECRETARY,

14 Respondent. 15 / 16 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this habeas case under 28 17 U.S.C. § 2254. While incarcerated, petitioner has violated prison rules against indecent 18 exposure on multiple occasions, and state authorities criminally prosecuted him and obtained 19 convictions for such behavior. In 2012, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition challenging 20 one of these convictions — from 2005. See Johnson v. Director, No. 12-6393 WHA (PR). 21 That federal petition was dismissed as untimely under the one-year limitations period 22 established by the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) because there 23 was a four-year gap between the end of his direct appeals and the filing of his federal petition. 24 commencement of his collateral challenges to his conviction. 25 In the instant petition, petitioner challenges a much older conviction for indecent 26 exposure, from 1993. For the same reasons that the prior federal petition challenging a more 27 recent state court conviction was untimely, the instant petition challenging an older conviction 28 1 1994, 26 years before he filed the instant petition and 23 years after the expiration of the 2 limitations period for federal petitions filed prior to AEDPA’s enactment in 1996. See 3 Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001) (a prisoner with a state conviction 4 finalized before April 24, 1996, therefore had until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas 5 petition on time). And while petitioner did file habeas petitions in state court challenging the 6 conviction he challenges here, he did not do so until 2019, more than 20 years after the 7 limitations period had expired, and therefore they do not save the instant federal petition from 8 being untimely. See Ferguson v. Palmateer, 321 F.3d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2003) (state habeas 9 petition filed after AEDPA's statute of limitations ended cannot toll the limitations period). 10 For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is DISMISSED. The request to proceed in 11 forma pauperis is GRANTED, in light of which the motions for a temporary restraining order 12 pertaining to trust fund documentation are DENIED as unnecessary. No certificate of 13 appealability is warranted in this case because a reasonable jurist would not find the dismissal 14 of this petition debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 15 The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: November 1 7 , 2020. 18 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28