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 factual basis for Petitioner’s claims, the Petition is subject to dismissal.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE no later than May 4, 2020 why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Habeas Rule 2(c) and Habeas Rule 4. Petitioner may discharge this Order by filing one of the following on or before the May 4, 2020 deadline: (1) A signed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); or

(2) A complete First Amended Petition that is signed, does not refer to or rely on any of Petitioner’s earlier pleading or its attachments, identifies with specificity each ground on which he seeks habeas relief, and articulates specific facts supporting each claim for habeas relief. If Petitioner elects to file a First Amended Petition, he may attach to that petition one or more of his state court briefs and refer to them for the supporting facts and law. However, he must also clearly and unambiguously identify for this Court, preferably in the form petition, the federal constitutional arguments he is raising for federal habeas relief.2 Petitioner’s failure to timely comply with this Order and show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed may result in a recommendation of dismissal pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 and/or Local Rule 41-1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner the Central District’s form state habeas petition and a copy of his Petition with attachments (Dkt. No. 1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer gr

2 Petitioner is cautioned that “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law,” and “a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Accordingly, claims that aspects of Petitioner’s trial violated California state court precedent or California state law are not cognizable on federal habeas review.