(HC) Reed v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BERNARD K. REED, Case No. 2:24-cv-3524-JDP (P) Petitioner, v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 2. After review of the petition, I find that it fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. I will dismiss the petition with leave to amend. Additionally, I will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, and deny his motion for default judgment, ECF No. 6. 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 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner raises several claims, most of…