(HC) Vang v. Arias

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JIMMY YOUNG VANG, Case No. 2:24-cv-1644-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ROBERT ARIAS, 15 Defendant.

18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The petition does not, as articulated, assert a viable federal habeas claim. I will dismiss the current petition and give petitioner an opportunity to amend and explain why this action should proceed.

22 The 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).

27 Petitioner raises one claim challenging his state conviction for premeditated attempted murder of a police officer. ECF No. 1, 4. He contends that his due process rights were violated | because no substantial evidence existed to show that he acted with the specific intent to kill a | police officer, and that there was no substantial evidence to show that his actions were || premeditated and deliberate. Jd. at 7. However, petitioner offers no facts to support this | allegation. See generally id. As such, the petition fails to state a claim. See James v. Borg, 24 | F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that “conclusory allegations which are not supported by a | statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief”); see also Rodriguez v. Rooney, No. 2:22- | cv-1898-JDP, 2023 WL 2088292, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023) (dismissing habeas petition at | screening for failure to state a claim where petitioner failed to allege specific facts to show “how | the evidence was insufficient”).

10 Rather than recommending immediate dismissal of the case, I will permit petitioner to | amend his petition and better explain the nature of his claims and why they should proceed. If || petitioner fails to amend within thirty days, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.

13 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 14 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

15 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, petitioner shall file either (1) an | amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice.

17 3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal || may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be || dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

20 4. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a habeas petition form with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ February 28, 2025 ow—— 24 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE