Covello
(HC) Glass v. Covello
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DANIEL AVERY GLASS, JR., Case No. 2:22-cv-01383-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION
DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE
v. SECTION 2254 CLAIM AND GRANTING
LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY
PATRICK COVELLO, DAYS Respondent. ECF No. 1 14 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His sole claim is that the trial court erred under California state law when it imposed a ten-year enhancement. ECF No. 1 at 3. This claim implicates only state sentencing laws and is not cognizable. I will grant petitioner leave to amend and explain why this claim should proceed. 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 it unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled…