(HC) Clark v. Black

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALPHONSO R. BLACK, Case No. 2:21-cv-02017-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION

DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

v. AND GIVING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN

SIXTY DAYS

CINDY BLACK & ROB BONTA, ECF No. 1 Respondents. 16 Petitioner is incarcerated at the Napa State Hospital and is seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The 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 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). Petitioner has not adequately developed his claims, and the petition cannot proceed. Petitioner argues that his parole was revoked in March…