Unknown

(HC) Camargo v. Unknown

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 20212:21-cv-00192California928 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ADRIAN MADRIGAL CAMARGO, No. 2:21-cv-0192 DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER UNKNOWN, Respondent. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Before the court is petitioner’s petition for screening and petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. For the reasons set forth below, this court will dismiss the petition with leave to amend. SCREENING I. Legal Standards It is not clear just what sort of action petitioner is attempting to file. However, both the rules governing habeas corpus cases and the rules governing civil rights cases require this court to screen petitioner’s initial filing before petitioner may proceed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary review…

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.