Warden

1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 MARK FAWCETT, Case No. 1:24-cv-00382-SAB-HC

10 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

11 v. FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE

REMEDIES

12 WARDEN,

13 Respondent.

14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 18 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 19 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 20 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 21 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 22 On April 2, 2024, the Court received the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus 23 wherein Petitioner challenges his convictions in Merced County Superior Court Case No. 18CR- 24 02358. (ECF No. 1.) Although unclear,…