The following excerpt is from Broussard v. United States, Case No. 1:19-cv-00164-AWI-JDP (HC) (E.D. Cal. 2020):
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the assigned judge must promptly examine the habeas petition and must order a response to the petition unless it "plainly appears" that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4 was "designed to give courts an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas petitions." Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d
Page 2
958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). The court may dismiss claims at screening for "easily identifiable" procedural defects. See id. at 968. The court may raise the statute of limitations sua sponte when reviewing a habeas petition. See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006); Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that federal district courts may consider the timeliness of a state prisoner's habeas petition to serve the interests of judicial efficiency).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.