Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01349-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK ARTHUR CRAWSHAW, JR., No. 2:13-CV-1349-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this

case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final

judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court are: (1) respondent’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 11); and (2) petitioner’s motion for leave to amend (Doc. 13). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 17 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On December 19, 2013, proper respondent Stu Sherman moved to dismiss this 1

action arguing that none of the grounds presented in the original petition had been exhausted in

state court. On February 26, 2014, petitioner initiated a new habeas corpus action, Case No.

2:14-CV-0562-CMK. On April 3, 2014, the court construed the petition in the new action as a

motion for leave to amend the instant action and directed that it be filed in the instant action as

such. Proper respondent has filed a statement of non-opposition to leave to amend in the instant

action. Petitioner’s motion will, therefore, be granted. Because the amended petition supercedes

the original petition which was the subject of respondent’s motion to dismiss, that motion is now

moot. 

Turning to the amended petition at Doc. 13, “[a] petitioner for habeas corpus

relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a),

Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In this case, petitioner names “State of California”

as the respondent. Because petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, petitioner will

be provided leave to amend to correct this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. 

See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may

result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion for leave to amend (Doc. 13) is granted;

2. Proper respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) is denied as moot; 

3. Petitioner’s first amended petition (Doc. 13) is dismissed with leave to

amend; 

/ / /

/ / /

Petitioner’s failure to name the proper respondent is addressed below. 1

2

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 17 Filed 07/25/14 Page 2 of 3
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

4. Petitioner shall file an amended petition on the form employed by this

court, and which names the proper respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within

30 days of the date of this order; and 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form

habeas corpus application.

DATED: July 24, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-01349-CMK Document 17 Filed 07/25/14 Page 3 of 3