Robin K. Cho v. Jim Robertson

facts, Petitioner states, “Please see attached,” and the only attachment is Petitioner’s opening brief in the California Court of Appeal, which, as stated above, includes at least sixteen different arguments. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine which of Petitioner’s numerous arguments raised before the California Court of Appeal he is presenting to this Court as grounds for federal habeas relief.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“Habeas Rules”), requires a district court to dismiss a petition without ordering a responsive pleading where “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petition is not entitled to relief.” Habeas Rule 4. Additionally, Habeas Rule 2 requires, inter alia, that the petition specify the grounds for relief, state the facts supporting each ground, state the relief requested, be legible, and be signed under penalty of perjury by Petitioner. Because the

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-2977-SVW (KS) Date: April 3, 2020 Title Robin K. Cho v. Pelican Bay State Prison

Petition does not clearly identify the legal and…