Matteson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ARMANDO E. HERRERA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01150-JDP Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE SUMMARILY

v. DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY ROBERT NOUSHMEN, ECF No. 1 Respondent. OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 16 Petitioner Armando E. Herrera, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for 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). Because it appears that the petition is untimely, we order petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be summarily dismissed. 25 …