Warden

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LARRY CHARLES CLEVELAND, Case No. 2:19-cv-09730-DSF (GJS) 12 Petitioner

13 v. ORDER: SUMMARILY DENYING

AND DISMISSING PETITION;

14 WARDEN, AND DENYING CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

15 Respondent.

16

17 18 On November 13, 2019, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in 19 this District [Dkt. 1, “Petition”]. The Petition challenges a September 2017 decision 20 by California’s Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) finding Petitioner to be 21 unsuitable for release on nonviolent offender parole. 22 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 23 Courts provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus “must” be summarily 24 dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 25 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Here, it plainly appears on 26 the face of the Petition that Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable in federal habeas 27 review and could not be rendered…