Rose
Rose v. State of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES E. ROSE, JR, Case No.: 3:21-cv-0267-CAB-BGS aka “Jason E. Roman, III”,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
Petitioner, RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND v. DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
15 Respondent. 16 17 On February 8, 2021, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 1, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the Petition without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable federal claim and failed to allege he was in custody at the time of filing, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Order, ECF No. 3 at 3–5, citing Brock v. Weston, 31 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Subject matter jurisdiction under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), is limited to those persons ‘in custody pursuant to…