Hixon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MELVIN JOHN GRIGSBY, Case No. 2:24-cv-2488-JDP (P) Petitioner, v. ORDER KEVIN HIXON, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, alleges in his first amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition that his procedural due process rights were violated when certain procedures were not followed when he was notified that a detainer was being placed upon him. ECF No. 9. Similar to his original petition, his first amended petition does not, as articulated, assert a viable federal habeas claim. I will dismiss the current petition and give petitioner a final opportunity to amend and to explain why this action should proceed. 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…