Newson

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALONZO MCKINNEY, No. 2:24-cv-0680 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 NEWSOM, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. §2254. 18 Before the court are petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus for screening and his request 19 to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford 21 the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the court to make a preliminary 24 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pro se habeas corpus petitions are to be 25 liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The court must dismiss a 26 petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to…