Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01119/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01119-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE CONSERVATORSHIP OF 

VERLA N. JONES,

 No. CIV S-05-1119 MCE GGH PS

ORDER

 /

This action has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21). Annamarie Jones is the daughter of petitioner Verla Jones, and is proceeding in this

action pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus as a next friend. Annamarie Jones seeks to

have her mother released from a nursing home.

On July 1, 2005, petitioner was directed to file an amended petition which names

the proper respondent. On July 11, 2005, petitioner filed a pleading captioned “amended

petition;” however, it does not contain any claims, but only lists individuals who might be proper

respondents. Therefore the amended petition is not complete. Petitioner is informed that the

court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make petitioner’s amended petition complete. 

Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended petition be complete in itself without reference to

any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended petition supersedes the

original petition. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once petitioner files an

amended petition, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. 

Furthermore, petitioner has named a variety of individuals whom she suggests as

Case 2:05-cv-01119-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

proper respondents. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having

custody of him or her [or the next friend] as the respondent to the petition. In this case, the

proper respondent may be the director of the nursing home facility where petitioner’s mother

resides. Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of 

personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). In the instant

action, petitioner has not named one respondent, but several potential respondents. Petitioner

will be permitted to name the proper respondent on amendment of the petition. Failure to do so

will result in the dismissal of the petition. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

Finally, petitioner has filed a document entitled “correction” in which she states

that she incorrectly cited Welfare and Institutions Code § 5276, and should have cited Penal

Code § 363. Once again, petitioner is informed that she must include all of her claims in the

second amended petition, and any prior pleadings will not be considered.

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus is dismissed, with leave to file a second amended petition within thirty days of this order. 

Petitioner IS ADVISED THAT ANY FUTURE FILINGS SHOULD REFER TO THE CIVIL

CASE NUMBER STAMPED ON PAGE ONE OF THIS ORDER.

DATED: 8/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

Jones1119.amd.wpd

Case 2:05-cv-01119-MCE -GGH Document 6 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2