(HC) Christensen v. Judge in the State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHAD ANDRE CHRISTENSEN, No. 2:23-cv-2846 DJC SCR P Petitioner, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

JUDGE IN THE STATE OF CALIF., Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pro se habeas corpus petitions should be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The court must dismiss a petition only “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. …