David Allen Benson v. Todd Spitzer
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION
11
12 DAVID ALLEN BENSON, No. 8:25-cv-2179-MRA-BFM 13 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 WHY HABEAS PETITION
TODD SPITZER, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
15 Respondent. 16 17
18 This Order concerns a federal habeas petition. Petitioner David Allen 19 Benson invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF 1 (“Petition”).) Under Rule 4 of the Rules 20 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court—rules that 21 apply to the Petition in this Court—the Court must review the Petition before 22 ordering a response. If it “plainly appears” from that initial review that 23 Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition.1 24 25 1 Because Petitioner has not yet been convicted, his Petition is appropriately 26 brought under § 2241 instead of § 2254. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). That difference does not change the outcome or the analysis. 27 First, courts apply Rule 4,…