(HC) Sifuentez v. Unknown

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/8/2021 GRANTING #4 Motion to Proceed IFP. DENIED as MOOT #8 Motion for Extension. Petitioner may file an amended petition within 60 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. (Attachments: #1 Habeas Corpus Form)(Reader, L)

Case 2:21-cv-01244-WBS-JDP Document 11 Filed 09/09/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY SIFUENTEZ,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,

Case No. 2:21-cv-01244-WBS-JDP (HC)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS;

v.
UNKNOWN,
Respondent.

(2) DENYING AS MOOT HIS REQUEST
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND

18

(3) FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES
NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN
SIXTY DAYS

19

ECF Nos. 4, 8, & 10

17

20
21

Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 2254. I have reviewed the petition, and it appears that petitioner did not exhaust his claims

23

before filing this case. I will give petitioner a chance to amend and confirm the status of his

24

claims before recommending that this action be dismissed.

25

The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules

26

Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must

27

examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that

28
1

Case 2:21-cv-01244-WBS-JDP Document 11 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
1

the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir.

2

2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

3

Petitioner raises numerous claims related to a September 2015 conviction. He states that,

4

after bringing his claims before the California Fifth District Court of Appeal, he did not pursue

5

them further in state court. ECF No. 10 at 3. Federal habeas claims must be exhausted by being

6

presented to the highest state court. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). Here,

7

petitioner was required to put claims before the California Supreme Court. If petitioner’s claims

8

are unexhausted, they may not proceed. He may file an amended petition that reasserts all his

9

claims and confirms their status with regard to exhaustion.

10

It is ORDERED that:

11

1.

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is granted.

12

2.

Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a habeas petition, ECF No. 8, is

13

denied as moot.

14

3.

Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If

15

he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this

16

order.

17

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated:
21
22

September 8, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2