(HC) Oliver v. Allison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER W. OLIVER, No. 2:20-CV-0972-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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). “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of 21 him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 22 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because 23 Petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided leave to amend 24 to correct this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 25 Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 26 action. See Local Rule 110. 27 / / / 28 / / / 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 an amended petition on the form employed by this 5 | court, and name the proper respondent and state all claims and requests for relief, within 30 days 6 | 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: October 19, 2020 Ssvcqo_ M DENNIS M. COTA 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28