(HC) Kuykendall v. Unknown

E.D. California

(HC) Kuykendall v. Unknown

DecidedJune 28, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00924

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Kuykendall v. Unknown ((HC) Kuykendall v. Unknown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC) Kuykendall v. Unknown, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN KUYKENDALL, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-WBS-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 UNKNOWN, ECF No. 8 15 Respondent. ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 16 AND GIVING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 17 ECF No. 1 18 19 Petitioner is confined at Napa State Hospital and seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the 21 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding 22 must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” 23 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 24 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). The petition cannot proceed 25 because I cannot tell what claims are being raised. 26 The two-page petition does not adequately describe the claims. Petitioner states that he 27 was not permitted to appear at an unspecified preliminary hearing. ECF No. 1 at 1. He does not 28 state the purpose of the hearing, what proceedings it was connected to, or how his absence 1 | negatively impacted his rights. Petitioner also claims that his Eighth Amendment right to be free 2 | from cruel and unusual punishment is being violated but, again, does not explain how. Id. 3 | Petitioner may amend his petition to better explain his claims. If he chooses to do so, he should 4 | use the habeas form enclosed with this order. 5 It is ORDERED that: 6 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is granted. 7 2. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If 8 | he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this 9 | order. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ June 25, 2021 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN KUYKENDALL, Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-WBS-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 UNKNOWN, ECF No. 8 15 Respondent. ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 16 AND GIVING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 17 ECF No. 1 18 19 Petitioner is confined at Napa State Hospital and seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the 21 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding 22 must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” 23 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 24 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). The petition cannot proceed 25 because I cannot tell what claims are being raised. 26 The two-page petition does not adequately describe the claims. Petitioner states that he 27 was not permitted to appear at an unspecified preliminary hearing. ECF No. 1 at 1. He does not 28 state the purpose of the hearing, what proceedings it was connected to, or how his absence 1 | negatively impacted his rights. Petitioner also claims that his Eighth Amendment right to be free 2 | from cruel and unusual punishment is being violated but, again, does not explain how. Id. 3 | Petitioner may amend his petition to better explain his claims. If he chooses to do so, he should 4 | use the habeas form enclosed with this order. 5 It is ORDERED that: 6 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is granted. 7 2. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If 8 | he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this 9 | order. 10 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( 1 ow — Dated: _ June 25, 2021 14 JEREMY D. PETERSON 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Kuykendall v. Unknown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-kuykendall-v-unknown-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack