IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 11, 2009
MICHAEL E. SCHINKEL, PETITIONER,
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
"A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition." Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Petitioner has named the Board of Parole Hearings as the respondent in this action. The Board of Parole Hearings, however, is not the proper respondent. Accordingly, the instant petition must be dismissed with leave to amend. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is advised that the proper respondent in the usual habeas action is the warden of the institution where the petitioner is currently incarcerated. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as moot;
2. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to file an amended petition within thirty days from the date of this order;
3. Any amended petition must be filed on the form employed by this court, must name the proper respondent, and must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form. It must bear the case number assigned to this action and must bear the title "Amended Petition"; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the form for habeas corpus application.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.