(HC) Reneaux v. Kibler ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE LUIS RENEAUX, No. 2:20-cv-02139 GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 BRIAN KIBLER, Warden 15 Respondent.1 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition without prejudice due 20 to the ongoing state proceedings regarding petitioner’s resentencing. ECF No. 10. Petitioner does 21 not aver that these state proceedings are not ongoing. 22 //// 23 //// 24 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 25 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 26 Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must 27 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 28 this case will name Brian Kibler as the respondent until further order of the court. 1 The federal petition was filed October 26, 2020. ECF No. 1. Petitioner raised one claim 2 regarding the Confrontation Clause. However, on appeal in state court, petitioner’s case was 3 remanded for resentencing. People v. Reneaux, 50 Cal.App.5th 852, 877 (June 17, 2020).2 As of 4 the date of petitioner’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, the resentencing procedures were 5 pending. ECF No. 18. Petitioner states his next court hearing in Yolo County Superior Court is on 6 June 8, 2021. Id. at 2. No further information regarding the resentencing has been submitted in 7 this case. 8 The parties shall inform the court within ten days of the filed date of this order whether 9 the resentencing proceedings have been completed, and if so, whether an appeal is pending or 10 contemplated. After receiving this information, the undersigned will adjudicate the pending 11 Motion to Dismiss. 12 Accordingly, the parties shall file a status report of the resentencing proceeding as set 13 forth above within ten days of the filed date of this order. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 3, 2021 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Petitioner’s Confrontation Clause issue was exhausted after appeal on petition for review 28 by the California Supreme Court.