Cisneros

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SALVADOR ALEXANDER CASTRO, Case No. 2:22-cv-00201-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

T. CISNEROS, 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 it cannot proceed because petitioner has failed to identify his claims and to state whether he has exhausted state remedies. 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 petition and order a response to it unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127…