(HC) Whitsitt v. State of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 1 17 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that the petition cannot proceed under § 2254. It must proceed, if at all, under § 2241. Additionally, the petition is impossible to understand and must 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 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 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).

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 eleven pages long and poorly organized. Petitioner’s failure to use section breaks or paragraphs | does the reader no favors. As such, I could not, if I ordered service, expect respondent to file a | substantive answer. Additionally, this action, insofar as it challenges pre-trial detention, must | proceed under § 2241, not § 2254. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) | (‘The general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available for challenges by a state prisoner | who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment--for example, a defendant in pre-trial | 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 | I order his custodians to provide “competency training.” Jd. This request appears to pertain to | 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 | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons || 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.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ March 3, 2022 q_-—_— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE