Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL PAUL JONES, Case No. 2:25-cv-1488-JDP (P) Petitioner, v. ORDER WARDEN, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. His petition fails to state an intelligible federal habeas claim, however. I will dismiss the petition with leave to amend so that he may, if he can, better articulate his claims and explain whether he exhausted them in state court. I will also deny his motion to appoint counsel, ECF No. 2. 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 relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner raises five grounds in…