Warden

Shazer Fernando Limas v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 20258:25-cv-00336California686 words

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.