The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NABIL IBN MANLEY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00039-JDP (HC)
12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
13 v. PAUPERIS
14 TAMMY CAMPBELL, ECF No. 5
15 Respondent. SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT THE
PETITION DOES NOT STATE A
16 COGNIZABLE SECTION 2254 CLAIM AND
GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN
17 THIRTY DAYS
18 ECF No. 1
19
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
20
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable claim. I
21
will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed.
22
Additionally, I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5.
23
The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
24
Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine
25
the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the
26
petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019);
27
Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).
28
1 Petitioner argues that the parole board used an “unfair and systemically biased risk
2 || assessment instrument” in its decision to deny him parole. ECF No. 1 at 4. A parole denial may
3 | be challenged via section 2254, but a petitioner is entitled only to minimal safeguards. Federal
4 | law requires only that the state “provides an inmate seeking parole with an opportunity to be
5 | heard and ...a statement of the reasons why parole was denied.” Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106,
6 1108 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Petitioner does not
7 | allege that he was denied either an opportunity to be heard or a statement of reasons for denial of
8 | parole.
9 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that explains why his claims should
10 | be allowed to proceed. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.
11 It is ORDERED that:
12 1. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 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 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal § 2254 habeas form with
16 | this order.
17 3. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is GRANTED.
18
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 ( q oy —
Dated: _ February 22, 2023 q———
21 JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28