IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 20, 2009
JOHN RICHARDSON, PETITIONER,
STANISLAUS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 18, 2009, the court advised petitioner that "[a] petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus must name as respondent the person having custody over him. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. This person ordinarily is the warden of the facility where petitioner is confined. See Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)." Feb. 18, 2009 Order at 1. Accordingly, the court granted petitioner leave to file an amended petition naming the proper respondent. On March 4, 2009, petitioner filed an amended petition naming the Stanislaus County Superior Court as respondent. The Stanislaus County Superior Court does not have custody over petitioner, who is housed at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center. Once again, petitioner has failed to name the proper respondent.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the March 4, 2009 amended petition is dismissed with leave to file a second amended petition naming the proper respondent within 30 days of the date of this order. Petitioner's failure to file an amended petition will result in an order dismissing this action without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to petitioner the form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus used in this court.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.