Schultz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVIER MIRANDA, Case No. 2:25-cv-2010-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 JASON SCHULTZ,

15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. I dismissed his initial 18 petition because it was unintelligible and likely time-barred. ECF No. 8. Petitioner has filed an 19 amended petition, ECF No. 9. After review of the amended petition, I find that it also fails to 20 state a cognizable federal habeas claim. Accordingly, I now recommend that the petition be 21 dismissed without leave to amend. I will also deny petitioner’s motion regarding constitutional 22 rights, ECF No. 10, and motion to advance, ECF No. 11. 23 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 25 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 petitioner is not…