Frauenheim
(HC) Alcantar v. Frauenheim
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JORGE ARMANDO ALCANTAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-01364-NONE-HBK Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS PETITION1
v.
OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS
S. FRAUENHEIM, (Doc. No. 1) Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner Jorge Armando Alcantar is a state prisoner without counsel proceeding pro se on his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). The petition is before the court for preliminary 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). 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)…