(HC) Rouser v. Lynch

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 20202:20-cv-02018California562 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROUSER, No. 2:20-cv-2018 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LYNCH, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the request to proceed in forma pauperis reveals 20 that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to proceed 21 in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 23 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review and determined that the 25 petition must be dismissed. Petitioner will be granted leave to file an amended petition. 26 Parts of petitioner’s original…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.