Opinion
2:22-cv-00026-JAM-JDP (HC)
04-11-2022
LEE KELLY CLARKE, Petitioner, v. SCSO AND PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents.
ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE SECTION 2254 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS ECF No. 1
JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find it incomprehensible; I cannot tell what or even how many claims are at issue. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed.
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 to the petition 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).
The petition, which runs to two-hundred and fifty-nine pages, is nearly impossible to read. Petitioner's handwriting is densely packed and undivided by paragraphs. At various points, petitioner scrawls illegible writings on the margins and edges of pages. See, e.g., ECF No. 1 at 1 40-41. No. respondent could reasonably be expected to comprehend and respond to this petition. I will give petitioner a chance to amend. If he chooses to do so, he should use the habeas form enclosed with this order and state his claims in a short, plain, and comprehensible manner.
It is ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED.
2. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 petition within thirty days of this order's entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this order.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2