(HC) Davis v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIS DAVIS, No. 2:19-CV-2199-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY -- STOCKTON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is petitioner’s petition 20 (ECF No. 1). 21 “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody 22 of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 23 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In this 24 case, petitioner does not name the custodial officer. Rather, he names “San Joaquin County – 25 Stockton” as the respondent. Because petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, 26 petitioner will be provided leave to amend to correct this technical defect by naming the correct 27 respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this 28 order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed 3 | with leave to amend; 4 2. Petitioner shall file a first amended petition on the form employed by this 5 | court, and which names the proper respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within 6 | 30 days of the date of this order; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form 8 | habeas corpus application. 9 10 | Dated: March 31, 2020 Ssvcqo_ DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28