SCSO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEE KELLY CLARKE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00026-JAM-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION

DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE

v. SECTION 2254 CLAIM AND GRANTING

LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY

SCSO AND PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, DAYS Respondents. 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 it incomprehensible; I cannot tell what or even how many claims are at issue. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. The 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. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th…