The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF RESPONDENT (Docs. 13, 1)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (DOC. 12) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT TO WARDEN JAMES A. YATES ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE PETITION (Doc. 1)
ORDER SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE DOCUMENTS ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's motion to amend the petition to name as Respondent James A. Yates, Warden at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), where Petitioner is incarcerated.
I. Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Petition to Name an Appropriate Respondent
Petitioner filed the motion pursuant to the suggestion of the Court in its order of July 13, 2010, in which the Court granted leave to Petitioner to amend the petition.
A petitioner seeking habeas relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules); Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9 th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9 th Cir.1994). Warden James A. Yates is the official having control over Petitioner's custodial institution and thus is an appropriate respondent in this action. The Court will direct that James A. Yates, Warden of PVSP, be named as Respondent, in place of the previously named People of the State of California (pet. 1).
II. Motion for Extension of Time
On August 6, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time within which to file a motion the amend the petition to name a proper respondent. (Doc. 12.) Because Petitioner has filed the motion to amend, the motion for the extension of time will be denied as moot.
III. A Response to the Petition
The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition. It is not clear from the face of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Accordingly, pursuant to Habeas Rule 4 and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,*fn1 the Court will direct the filing of a response, set a briefing schedule, and give directions for service of documents.