(HC) Arroyos v. U. S. Marshal, Fresno

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFRED ARROYOS, No. 1:22-cv-01503-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF

13 v. HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

MATTER JURISDICTION AND MOOTNESS

14 U.S. MARSHAL, FRESNO, 14-Day Deadline 15 Respondent. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 16 17 18 Petitioner Alfred Arroyos (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis, initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 2254. (Doc. 1). The petition is before the Court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 21 Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”). 22 Preliminary Screening 23 Under Habeas Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the 24 habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner 25 is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);…