Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mitchell v. United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 23, 2010

BASILIO RAIMUNDO MITCHELL, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this apparent petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.*fn1 On June 6, 2010, the court directed petitioner, among other things, to file an amended petition naming the correct respondent. In particular, the then-operative petition named as respondent the "United States of America" and not the person having custody of petitioner (i.e., the prison warden). The amended petition filed on June 14, 2010, continues to name the incorrect respondent. Rather than the "United States of America," petitioner now names "Attorney General of State of California" despite having been directed to name the person having custody. Petitioner has been repeatedly warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110.

Petitioner shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended petition naming the correct respondent as ordered. Petitioner is again warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.