(HC) Alspaugh v. Superior Court of CA ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH E. ALSPAUGH, No. 2:22-CV-0761-DMC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1. “A petitioner for habeas 20 corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the 21 petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 22 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because Petitioner has not named the 23 appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided leave to amend to correct this technical 24 defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that 25 failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] 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: September 14, 2022 Ss..c0_, DENNIS M. COTA 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28