Johnson v. Perkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:24-cv-05542-RAJ-MLP v. 11 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT JEFFREY PERKINS1, AND RECOMMENDATION Respondent.

The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corp us, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L.

Peterson (Dkt. # 24), any objections thereto2, and the remaining record, hereby finds and ORDERS the following: The State of Washington was initially listed as a Respondent but has since been terminated from this action after Petitioner filed his Amended Habeas Petition. Dkt. # 12.

21 2 Petitioner filed objections to Judge Peterson’s Report and Recommendation. Dkt. # 25. The Court reviewed the objections and finds that no objection substantively responds to Judge Peterson’s legal conclusions regarding the untimeliness of the Amended Petition and equitable tolling. Petitioner incorrectly claims that State v. Arbogast, 199 Wn.2d 36, 506 P.3d 1238 (2022) held that his own case “was wrongly decided.” Dkt. # 25 at 2. This is not so. The Washington Court of Appeals held that Arbogast did not announce a new rule and merely clarified existing law; accordingly, the decision did not provide grounds for collateral review of an issue it had 1 (1) The Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted. Dkt. # 24.

2 (2) Petitioner Christopher Johnson’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. # 12) and this action are DISMISSED, with prejudice, as untimely under 28 4 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (3) In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, to counsel for Respondent, and to the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson.

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2025.

A 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

22 already decided regarding Petitioner’s case on direct appeal. Petitioner also believes the Court has not “hear[ed] his case[.]” Id. at 5. The Court has reviewed a multitude of issues in this action, including Petitioner’s failure to pay the requisite filing fee. Petitioner continues to circumvent the Court’s rulings and refuses to accept that both his original and amended habeas petitions contained procedural defects.