(HC) Smith v. County of Riverside
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEREK SMITH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00688-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER v. FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES
NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S
Respondent. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
16 ECF Nos. 1 & 2 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition is deficient for two reasons. First, it does not appear that the claims have been exhausted in state court. Second, the claims are pled too vaguely to give respondent adequate notice. I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend and remedy these deficiencies. The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 …