(HC) Davis v. Cates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, No. 2:21-CV-1900-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, ECF 19 No. 1. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or 20 her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th 21 Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because Petitioner 22 has not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided leave to amend to correct 23 this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is 24 warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local 25 Rule 110. 26 / / / 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 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: January 28, 2022 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