(HC) Sifuentez v. Unknown
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:21-cv-01244-WBS-JDP (HC)
(1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
(2) DENYING AS MOOT HIS REQUEST
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; AND
(3) FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES
NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN
ECF Nos. 4, 8, & 10
Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. I have reviewed the petition, and it appears that petitioner did not exhaust his claims
before filing this case. I will give petitioner a chance to amend and confirm the status of his
claims before recommending that this action be dismissed.
The amended 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
Case 2:21-cv-01244-WBS-JDP Document 11 Filed 09/09/21 Page 2 of 2
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).
Petitioner raises numerous claims related to a September 2015 conviction. He states that,
after bringing his claims before the California Fifth District Court of Appeal, he did not pursue
them further in state court. ECF No. 10 at 3. Federal habeas claims must be exhausted by being
presented to the highest state court. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). Here,
petitioner was required to put claims before the California Supreme Court. If petitioner’s claims
are unexhausted, they may not proceed. He may file an amended petition that reasserts all his
claims and confirms their status with regard to exhaustion.
It is ORDERED that:
Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 4, is granted.
Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file a habeas petition, ECF No. 8, is
denied as moot.
Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty 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
The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 8, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?