The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION TO ) CHANGE THE NAME OF RESPONDENT
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 11)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 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 a proper respondent, filed on November 8, 2012, in response to the Court's order of October 22, 2012, granting Petitioner leave to file the motion. Also pending is a motion for an extension of time to reply to the Court's order to show cause that issued on October 22, 2012.
I. Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent Petitioner requests that Randy Grounds be named as Respondent in this matter.
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 in the United States District Courts; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Generally, the person having custody of the prisoner is the warden of the prison because the warden has "day to day control over" the prisoner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). Randy Grounds is the warden of Petitioner's custodial institution. Therefore, Petitioner's request is proper.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for leave to amend the petition to name Randy Grounds, Warden, as Respondent in this matter is GRANTED.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to change the name of Respondent to Randy Grounds, Warden.
II. Request for Extension of Time
Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to respond to the Court's order to Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies, and to submit a signed declaration under penalty of perjury to verify the petition, which was submitted without a signature and verification.
Good cause appearing, Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a response to the order to show cause is GRANTED, and Petitioner's response is due to be filed no later than December 26, 2012.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...