1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 GENE ALLEN, Case No. 3:20-cv-00389-MMD-WGC 7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8 NEVADA, STATE OF, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 Petitioner Gene Allen has submitted what he has styled a pro se petition for writ of 12 habeas corpus, pursuant to

(ECF No. 1-1). His application to proceed 13 in forma pauperis is granted. The Court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas 14 Rule 4 and finds that it must be dismissed for failure to state a claim cognizable in federal 15 habeas corpus. 16 This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person 17 in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 18 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254(a). Alleged errors in the interpretation or application of state law do not warrant 20 habeas relief. Hubbart v. Knapp,

, 779–80 (9th Cir. 2004). 21 Here, it is unclear what relief Allen seeks. He states that he challenges a “claim of 22 fraudulent judicial practice.” (Id. at 2.) He also appears to seek to be transported back to 23 Northern Nevada Correctional Center from Lovelock Correctional Center. To the extent 24 that these might be discernible claims in any legal context, they are not cognizable in 25 federal habeas.1 He also seems to allege intentional infliction of emotion distress, which 26 /// 27 1Allen alludes to wanting to be returned to Northern Nevada Correctional Center in order to receive “further medical treatment.” If Allen wants to allege a claim that prison 28 personnel are acting with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need such a claim is a state-law issue. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim □□ cognizable in federal habeas corpus. 3 The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability, as reasonable jurists would 4|| not debate the dismissal of this petition. 5 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis 6 || (ECF No. 1) is granted. 7 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court detach and file the petition (ECF No. 8|| 1-1). 9 It is further ordered that the petition is dismissed for failure to state a claim 10|| cognizable in federal habeas corpus. 11 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied. 12 lt is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 4) and motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF Nos. 5) are both denied as moot. 14 It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 15 DATED THIS 30" day of July 2020. 16 , MIRANDA M. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28