(HC) Johnson v. Cueva
2:20-cv-02060-DAD-CKD
E.D. Cal.Jul 19, 2021Background
- Petitioner Bryon C. Johnson, a pro se state prisoner, filed a habeas petition (28 U.S.C. §2254) asserting a federal "hold/warrant" is preventing his release, and asking state authorities to expunge a 1994 federal conviction from state records.
- Johnson also acknowledges he is serving an unrelated indeterminate 8-to-life state sentence; he claims an earlier state sentence expired in 2016 and that the federal sentence was consecutive to that expired term.
- The U.S. Attorney informed the court that Johnson has no remaining federal sentence to complete — i.e., no operative federal sentence exists.
- State respondent Daniel E. Cueva moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies (no presentation to the California Supreme Court). The magistrate judge agreed exhaustion is required if relief depends on state action.
- The court also noted that challenges to the execution of a federal sentence belong in a §2241 petition, not §2254.
- The magistrate judge granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and gave Johnson 30 days to (a) amend to state coherent, non‑contradictory facts and show exhaustion, (b) allege an operative federal sentence if attacking federal execution, or (c) notify the court he abandons the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of state remedies | Johnson argues relief tied to a federal matter and thus need not exhaust state remedies | Cueva: Johnson must exhaust administrative/state remedies and present claims to the California Supreme Court | Court: Petition dismissed for lack of exhaustion; leave to amend and must show exhaustion if relief depends on state processes |
| Proper habeas vehicle | Johnson treats claims as not requiring §2241; frames action as state-record correction under §2254 | Respondent and court: attack on execution of a federal sentence should be by §2241 | Court: If Johnson seeks to attack federal sentence execution, he must pursue §2241 instead of §2254 |
| Existence of operative federal sentence / mootness | Johnson contends a four‑year consecutive federal sentence affects his custody | U.S. Attorney reports no outstanding federal sentence; respondent disputes existence of an operative federal sentence | Court: No federal sentence has been shown to be outstanding; Johnson must allege a live federal sentence or show why case is not moot |
| Relief sought (expungement / record correction) | Johnson seeks expungement/correction of federal conviction from state records to obtain release | Cueva: Even if state can alter records, Johnson must exhaust administrative/state remedies and specify records sought to be changed | Court: Ordered Johnson to specify the records, show exhaustion, and explain the real‑world impact; granted leave to amend with instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (discussing habeas exhaustion principles)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requires presenting claims to the state's highest court)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (exhaustion satisfied by giving highest state court a full and fair opportunity to rule)
- Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1985) (defining the full and fair opportunity requirement for exhaustion)
- Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1999) (California prisoners must present federal issues to the California Supreme Court to exhaust)
- Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1989) (challenge to execution of a federal sentence should be brought under §2241)