(HC) Wandick v. Central California Women's Facility
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KRYSTAL WANDICK, Case No. 1:20-cv-00745-JDP Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
v. FAILURE TO EXHAUST CLAIMS CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S RESPONSE DUE IN 30 DAYS
FACILITY,
ECF No. 1 Respondent.
17 Petitioner Krystal Wandick, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if 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). Courts have “an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 25 …