Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01165/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01165-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH RASHAD TAYLOR, Civil No. 11cv1165-BTM (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER SUA SPONTE 

SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENTS 

vs.

MARTIN HOSHINO, Acting Secretary,

Respondent.

On May 26, 2011, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, naming as Respondents Mike McDonald, the

Warden of Calipatria State Prison, where Petitioner was confined, and Kamala Harris, the

California Attorney General. Petitioner has now submitted a Notice of change of address

indicating that he has been transferred to Centinela State Prison. (ECF No. 26.) Because

Petitioner’s custodian has changed, the Warden of the institution where Petitioner was

previously housed is no longer a proper Respondent.

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. 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 Martin Hoshino, Acting Secretary of the California Department of Corrections

I:\Chambers Major\CASES\Taylor v. McDonald et al (habe)\11cv1165-Substitute.wpd, 122812 -1- 11cv1165

Case 3:11-cv-01165-BTM-BLM Document 27 Filed 12/28/12 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

and Rehabilitation, as Respondent in place of Mike McDonald. 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). 

In addition, the Attorney General of the State of California is not a proper respondent in

this action. As set forth above, 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.

The Clerk of the Court shall modify the docket to reflect “Martin Hoshino, Acting

Secretary” as Respondent in place of “Mike McDonald” and “Kamala Harris.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2012

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

I:\Chambers Major\CASES\Taylor v. McDonald et al (habe)\11cv1165-Substitute.wpd, 122812 -2- 11cv1165

Case 3:11-cv-01165-BTM-BLM Document 27 Filed 12/28/12 Page 2 of 2