Madden
(HC) Frye v. Madden
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KARLOS FRYE, Case No. 2:21-cv-01682-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION
DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
v. AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
WITHIN SIXTY DAYS
RAYMOND MADDEN, ECF Nos. 1 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it is time-barred and cannot proceed. I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. The amended petition is before me 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 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). …