(HC) Reed v. State of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERNARD K. REED, Case No. 2:24-cv-3524-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 2. After review of the petition, 19 I find that it fails to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. I will dismiss the petition with leave 20 to amend. Additionally, I will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 21 No. 5, and deny his motion for default judgment, ECF No. 6. 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 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 26 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 Petitioner raises several claims, most of…