(HC) Tweedy v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAMUEL W. TWEEDY, Case No. 2:23-cv-01239-JDP (HC) Petitioner, ORDER v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a cognizable habeas claim. I will give him leave to amend. I will also grant his petition to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Petitioner has recently filed a request for ruling, ECF No. 7, which I will deny as moot. 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 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 (9th Cir. 1998). Petitioner argues…