(HC) Whitsitt v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Case No. 2:21-cv-02019-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION

DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

v. UNDER SECTION 2254 AND GRANTING

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DAYS Respondent. ECF No. 1 16 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that the petition cannot proceed under § 2254. It must proceed, if at all, under § 2241. Additionally, the petition is impossible to understand and must be re-drafted if it is to be served. The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v.…