1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THEODORE CHURCHILL SHOVE Sr., Case No. 2:24-cv-1976-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brought this action under section 2254. ECF No. 1. Petitioner 19 has twice brought petitions that appear time-barred and whose substance is unintelligible. I have 20 twice given him leave to amend, ECF Nos. 28 & 45, and he has filed a third petition, ECF No. 47. 21 Like its predecessors, the third petition is incomprehensible and apparently time-barred. 22 Accordingly, I now recommend that it be dismissed without leave to amend. Petitioner has also 23 filed numerous other motions, ECF Nos. 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56, & 57, which I will deny as 24 moot. If these recommendations are not adopted, petitioner may renew them. 25 Screening Order 26 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 27 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 28 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 1 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery,

(9th Cir. 2019); 2 Boyd v. Thompson,

(9th Cir. 1998). 3 As I explained in my past screening orders, petitioner appears to be attacking a conviction 4 that was finalized sometime prior to 2010. Petitioner indicates that he was convicted in 2007 and 5 sentenced in 2008. ECF No. 47 at 1. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act a one- 6 year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions by state prisoners. See 28 U.S.C. 7 § 2244(d)(1). This action was initially filed on July 19, 2024; it is impossible to understand how 8 petitioner’s claims can be timely. And, as before, petitioner has failed to present a cogent 9 explanation of his claims. The operative petition runs to two-hundred and thirty-four pages, 10 including exhibits. And the non-exhibit portion makes little sense. Petitioner references domestic 11 terrorism, ECF No. 47 at 5, an illegal trial whose “legal judgment” never existed, id. at 6, and 12 treason, id. at 7. The arguments are devoid of any substance and do not, in any specific way, 13 explain how petitioner’s conviction violated his constitutional rights. This is petitioner’s third 14 opportunity to present a viable petition, and he is no closer to doing so. Accordingly, I now 15 recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state a viable federal habeas claim. See 16 McFarland v. Scott,

(1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss 17 summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face . . . .”). 18 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 19 1. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action. 20 2. Petitioner’s pending motions, ECF Nos. 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56, & 57, are 21 DENIED as moot. 22 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the operative petition, ECF No. 47, be DISMISSED 23 without leave to amend for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(l). Within fourteen days of 26 service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 27 court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 1 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 2 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 3 | Turner v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 4 1991). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 15, 2025 q——— 8 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28