Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01709/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01709-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\NLS\07cv1709-subresp.wpd, 1088 -1- 07cv1709

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID AVILA, Civil No. 07cv1709 L (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER SUA SPONTE

v. SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENT

MATTHEW CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

On August 29, 2007, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At the time of filing, Petitioner was apparently housed at

Calipatria State Prison and thus named L.E. Scribner, Warden, as Respondent. Based on the

notice of change of address Petitioner submitted to the Court on October 3, 2008, it appears

Petitioner is no longer housed at Calipatria State Prison; rather, it appears he is presently

incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, California.

Additionally, Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of the State of California, is not a proper

respondent in this action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer

having custody of the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

However, “if the applicant is not presently in custody pursuant to a state judgement against

which he seeks relief but may be subject to such custody in the future,” then “the officer having

present custody of the applicant as well as the attorney general of the state in which the judgment

which he seeks to attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:07-cv-01709-L-NLS Document 17 Filed 10/08/08 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\NLS\07cv1709-subresp.wpd, 1088 -2- 07cv1709

foll. § 2254. Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as a

respondent in this action.

A writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Because Petitioner’s place of custody has changed,

so has his custodian. Accordingly, in order to conform with the requirements of Rule 2(a) of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and to avoid changing the Respondent again if Petitioner is

transferred to another prison or paroled, the Court hereby sua sponte ORDERS the substitution

of Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as

Respondent in place of “L.E. Scribner” and “Jerry Brown.” See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81

F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent in § 2254 proceedings may be the chief

officer in charge of state penal institutions).

The Clerk of the Court shall modify the docket to reflect “Matthew Cate, Secretary” as

respondent in place of “L.E. Scribner” and “Jerry Brown.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 8, 2008

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01709-L-NLS Document 17 Filed 10/08/08 Page 2 of 2