Unknown

(HC) Nielson v. Unknown

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 23, 20252:25-cv-00794California799 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICHARD ANTHONY NIELSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-0794-JDP (P) Petitioner, v. ORDER UNKNOWN, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, and for a thirty-day extension of time to supplement his petition, ECF No. 7. I cannot discern what claims petitioner is attempting to bring, and I will dismiss the petition with leave to amend to allow petitioner an opportunity to address the deficiencies noted herein. I will also deny petitioner’s motion for an extension of time; he will have an opportunity to provide the referenced additional documents should he choose to amend his petition. I will deny petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot because he has already paid the filing fee. The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.…

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.