(HC) Clark v. Black
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALPHONSO R. CLARK, Case No. 2:21-cv-02017-JDP (HC) Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER FINDING THAT THE
PETITION DOES NOT STATE A
v. COGNIZABLE CLAIM 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 Petitioner argues that his parole was revoked in…