(HC) Manley v. Campbell ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NABIL IBN MANLEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00039-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. PAUPERIS 14 TAMMY CAMPBELL, ECF No. 5 15 Respondent. SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A 16 COGNIZABLE SECTION 2254 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN 17 THIRTY DAYS 18 ECF No. 1 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable claim. I 21 will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. 22 Additionally, I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. 23 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 25 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 26 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 27 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 Petitioner argues that the parole board used an “unfair and systemically biased risk 2 || assessment instrument” in its decision to deny him parole. ECF No. 1 at 4. A parole denial may 3 | be challenged via section 2254, but a petitioner is entitled only to minimal safeguards. Federal 4 | law requires only that the state “provides an inmate seeking parole with an opportunity to be 5 | heard and ...a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 6 1108 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Petitioner does not 7 | allege that he was denied either an opportunity to be heard or a statement of reasons for denial of 8 | parole. 9 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that explains why his claims should 10 | be allowed to proceed. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 11 It is ORDERED that: 12 1. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 petition within thirty days of this order’s 13 | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons 14 || stated in this order. 15 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2254 habeas form with 16 | this order. 17 3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ February 22, 2023 q——— 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28