Rahman Rushing v. California Institute for Men

I. INTRODUCTION

17 On July 20, 2020, Petitioner Rahman Rushing, a California state prisoner, filed a 18 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. No. 1]. Petitioner raises one ground for relief 19 regarding the prison’s response to an outbreak of Covid-19. [Id., p. 3]. A review of the 20 pleading and records in this case reveals that Petitioner fails to allege a cognizable claim 21 for federal habeas relief. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the 22 case without prejudice.

1 Where necessary, the Court takes judicial notice of the public records. See Fed. R. II. DISCUSSION A. Failure to State a Cognizable Claim The Court has the authority to dismiss habeas actions sua sponte. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, “the court must summarily

dismiss the petition without ordering a responsive pleading.” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 641, n.1 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Rule 4). Under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, a federal court shall…