(HC) Brown v. People of the State of California

Opinion

DAVID BROWN, No. 2:23-CV-1835-DMC-P Petitioner, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s amended petition, ECF No. 5. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. As with the original petition, which improperly named the People of the State of California as Respondent, the amended petition improperly names the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as Respondent. Petitioner must name the individual state officer having custody, which is the warden of Plaintiff’s prison. Because Petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided another opportunity to amend to correct this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that continued failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 5, is dismissed with leave to amend; 2. Petitioner shall file an second amended petition on the form employed by this court, and which names the proper respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within 30 days of the date of this order; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Petitioner the Court’s form habeas corpus application. Dated: March 15, 2024 Ss..c0_, M4 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE