(HC) Baker v. Superior Courts of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMAUL LEE BAKER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00476-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER v. FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES
NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM,
SUPERIOR COURTS OF GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND, AND CALIFORNIA, et al. GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA Respondents. PAUPERIS 16 ECF Nos. 1 & 12 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. The 19 petition is deficient because it appears to invoke only questions of state law. I will grant him 20 leave to amend to explain why this action should proceed. I will also grant petitioner’s 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 12. 22 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 24 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 25…