Andre Marvin Jennings v. People of the State of Riverside CA

DISCUSSION

I. Habeas Rule

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 petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Thus, Rule 4 reflects Congress’s intent for the district courts to take an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a district court’s use of this summary dismissal power is not without limits. Id. at 1128. To the contrary, a habeas court must give a petitioner notice of the defect and the consequences for failing to correct it as well as an opportunity to respond to the argument for dismissal. Id. \\ \\ \\ \\

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 20-0971-ODW (KS) Date: May 7, 2020 Title Andre Marvin Jennings v. People of the State of Riverside

II. The Petition Fails to Establish that Petitioner is in Custody and the Court Has

Jurisdiction to Consider Petitioner’s Claims for Relief

Although…