(HC) Reneaux v. Kibler

Opinion

JESSE LUIS RENEAUX, No. 2:20-cv-02139 GGH P Petitioner, v. ORDER BRIAN KIBLER, Warden Respondent.1 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition without prejudice due to the ongoing state proceedings regarding petitioner’s resentencing. ECF No. 10. Petitioner does not aver that these state proceedings are not ongoing. //// ////

1 As noted by counsel for the moving party, petitioner has not named a proper respondent, and seeks to substitute the warden of the prison housing petitioner in lieu of the initially named respondent “Federal District Court of California.” Counsel is correct. The above-named respondent, Brain Kibler, is substituted as the respondent in this case. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.”); Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). The Clerk is ordered to make this substitution, and all future pleadings in this case will name Brian Kibler as the respondent until further order of the court. The federal petition was filed October 26, 2020. ECF No. 1. Petitioner raised one claim regarding the Confrontation Clause. However, on appeal in state court, petitioner’s case was remanded for resentencing. People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal.App.5th 852, 877 (June 17, 2020).2 As of the date of petitioner’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, the resentencing procedures were pending. ECF No. 18. Petitioner states his next court hearing in Yolo County Superior Court is on June 8, 2021. Id. at 2. No further information regarding the resentencing has been submitted in this case. The parties shall inform the court within ten days of the filed date of this order whether the resentencing proceedings have been completed, and if so, whether an appeal is pending or contemplated. After receiving this information, the undersigned will adjudicate the pending Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the parties shall file a status report of the resentencing proceeding as set forth above within ten days of the filed date of this order. Dated: August 3, 2021 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause issue was exhausted after appeal on petition for review by the California Supreme Court.