(HC) Crump v. Director Of Corrections Doc.

10

Case 1:06-cv-01467-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 STANLEY CRUMP, CV F 06-1467 AWI DLB HC
10 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO
AMEND PETITION TO NAME DIRECTOR
11 v. OF CORRECTIONS
12
DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS,
13
Respondent.
14 /
15
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
17
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state
18
officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules
19
Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v.
20
California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having
21
custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is
22
incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v.
23
United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley v. California Supreme Court,
24
21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions
25
is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.
26
Although Petitioner properly names Office of the Director of Corrections as Respondent,
27
Petitioner does not personally name the Director. Therefore, Petitioner must amend the petition
28

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:06-cv-01467-DLB Document 10 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 and give the personal name of the current Director of Corrections. In the interests of judicial
2 economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion

3 entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may

4 name the proper respondent in this action.

5 ORDER

6 Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

7 order in which to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent. Failure to amend the

8 petition and state a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that the petition be

9 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: October 27, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28