Warden
Shazer Fernando Limas v. Warden
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
INTRODUCTION
On February 20, 2025, Petitioner, a California inmate proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Petition identifies a December 12, 2022 conviction of murder in the Orange County Superior Court. (/d. at 2.) However, the Petition does not name a respondent, raises no grounds for relief, and articulates no supporting facts. (/d. at 1, 5-6.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“Habeas Rules”), requires a district court to dismiss a petition without ordering a responsive pleading where “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 reflects Congress’s intent for the district courts to take an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a district court’s use of this summary dismissal power is not without limits. Jd. at 1128. A habeas court must give a petitioner notice of the defect and the consequences…