(HC)Singh
(HC)Singh v. Pfeiffer
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Case No. 2:21-cv-01731-TLN-JDP (HC) Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION
v. BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND AS UNEXHAUSTED
C. PFEIFFER, ECF No. 22 Respondent. 14 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has been given two chances to amend his petition, ECF Nos. 8 & 21, and has now filed his second amended petition, ECF No. 22. After reviewing the second amended petition, I conclude that petitioner’s claims are unexhausted and should be dismissed without prejudice. The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2241 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.…