(HC) Whitsitt v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Case No. 2:21-cv-02019-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 13 v. UNDER SECTION 2254 AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 1 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that the petition cannot proceed under § 2254. It must 19 proceed, if at all, under § 2241. Additionally, the petition is impossible to understand and must 20 be re-drafted if it is to be served. 21 The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must 23 examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that 24 the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 25 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 26 Petitioner alleges that he is being unlawfully held in pre-trial detention. ECF No. 1 at 2. 27 The specifics of his claim are, frankly, impossible to understand. The petition is one-hundred and 28 eleven pages long and poorly organized. Petitioner’s failure to use section breaks or paragraphs 1 | does the reader no favors. As such, I could not, if I ordered service, expect respondent to file a 2 | substantive answer. Additionally, this action, insofar as it challenges pre-trial detention, must 3 | proceed under § 2241, not § 2254. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) 4 | (‘The general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for challenges by a state prisoner 5 | who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment--for example, a defendant in pre-trial 6 | detention or awaiting extradition.”). I will give petitioner a chance to amend his petition. 7 Additionally, I will deny his motion for treatment. ECF No. 10 at 1. Therein, he asks that 8 | I order his custodians to provide “competency training.” Jd. This request appears to pertain to 9 | the conditions of his confinement and, as such, should be raised in a separate section 1983 action. 10 It is ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED. 12 2. Petitioner may file an amended § 2241 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 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 16 A, Petitioner’s motion for treatment, ECF No. 10, is DENIED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ March 3, 2022 q_-—_— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28