Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00411/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00411-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaac Jones
Petitioner
S. Young
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAAC JONES,

Petitioner,

v.

S. YOUNG,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00411-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AT 

SCREENING

ECF No. 1

Petitioner Isaac Jones, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court 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). To pass screening, petitioner must allege a violation of “clearly established federal 

law”—meaning a violation of a U.S. Supreme Court holding. See White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 

415, 419 (2014). At this early stage, Rule 4 gives “courts an active role in summarily disposing 

of facially defective habeas petitions.” Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) 

(citation omitted). The rule also “imposes on courts the duty to screen out” petitions that are 

vague and conclusory. Id. 

Case 1:19-cv-00411-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 01/14/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is proper when a federal prisoner wishes to 

challenge the manner of execution of his sentence. See Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 

(9th Cir. 2008). Here, petitioner complains of a “parole problem.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Specifically, 

petitioner argues that a medical condition prevented him from filing a timely administrative 

appeal at his prison. Id. at 3. Petitioner requests that an incident report be expunged and that 41 

days of good time credit be restored to him. Id. at 5. Petitioner presented evidence that the prison 

will give him an opportunity to file his late appeal if he provides a staff note verifying his reasons 

for the delay in filing. Id. at 11. These allegations and requests alone are vague and conclusory. 

I will not construct a habeas claim for petitioner. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 226 (2004) 

(noting that judges, “impartial decisionmakers,” may not give legal advice to pro se litigants). 

Without an allegation of a constitutional rights violation which connects the untimely appeal to 

the loss of good time credit, petitioner has failed to state a claim sufficient to pass Rule 4 

screening. 

Order

I order petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to 

state a cognizable habeas claim. If petitioner wishes to continue seeking habeas relief, petitioner

should respond to this order within fourteen days from the date of service with an amended 

petition. To pass screening under § 2241, the amended petition should allege a constitutional 

violation in the manner of execution of petitioner’s sentence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:19-cv-00411-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2