Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00155/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00155-4/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:\COMMO N\CHMB _Bencivengo\Cases\Civil\Phanbandith--07cv0155\07cv0155-Substi tute.wpd, 617 -1- 07cv0155

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHITIKHOUN PHANBANDITH, Civil No. 07cv0155-L (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER SUA SPONTE 

v. SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENTS

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner named as Respondents to this action Mike Knowles,

the Warden of the institution where he was confined, and Bill Lockyer, the former Attorney

General of the State of California. 

Petitioner has notified the Court that he has been transferred to another prison. 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 confinement has changed, the Respondent

to this action has also changed. 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 James E. Tilton, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,

Case 3:07-cv-00155-L-CAB Document 10 Filed 06/01/07 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:\COMMO N\CHMB _Bencivengo\Cases\Civil\Phanbandith--07cv0155\07cv0155-Substi tute.wpd, 617 -2- 07cv0155

as Respondent in place of “Mike Knowles.” 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).

Additionally, Bill Lockyer, the former 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, “[i]f the petitioner is not yet in custody – but may be subject to future custody

– under the state-court judgment being contested, the petition must name as respondents both

the officer who has current custody and the attorney general of the state where the judgement

was entered.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have

named the Attorney General as a respondent in this action.

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to modify the docket to reflect

James E. Tilton as Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 1, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00155-L-CAB Document 10 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 2