(HC)Singh
(HC)Singh v. Pfeiffer
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:21-cv-01731-TLN-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE AMENDED
PETITION DOES NOT STATE A
v. COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND GRANTING A
FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND
C. PFEIFFER, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS Respondent. ECF No. 18 16 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has filed an amended petition that, for the reasons stated below, cannot proceed. Having already afforded petitioner one opportunity to amend, I will give him one final chance to submit a viable section 2254 petition. 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.…