Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01955/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01955-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE LEE ADAMS, SR., No. CIV S-06-1955-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

JUDGE W. HARRIS, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 12, 2006, the court issued an order

dismissing the petition with leave to amend because the petition had not named the appropriate

respondent. Petitioner was instructed to file an amended petition which named the person

having custody over him, see Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.

1994), who is typically the prison warden. On November 20, 2006, petitioner filed an amended

petition, this time naming as the respondent “[Correctional Officer] Mitter, State of California, In

Chain of Command.” By definition, a correctional officer is not the warden. Therefore, as with

the original petition, the amended petition does not name the correct respondent and will be

dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner must name the actual warden of the prison where he is

currently incarcerated. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. See Local Rule

11-110. 

Also before the court is petitioner’s document entitled “Motion for Dismissal”

(Doc. 17), filed on October 12, 2006. The court observes that this is not a motion in the sense

Case 2:06-cv-01955-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 12/07/06 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

that petitioner seeks dismissal the action or particular claims. Rather, petitioner offers various

arguments why the state trial court’s sentence should not be “dismissed.” As such, the document

is construed as points and authorities in support of petitioner’s petition. The document will be

disregarded as improperly filed. Petitioner may include the arguments contained in this

document in his amended petition. 

Finally, the court notes that the amended petition filed on November 20, 2006, is

also defective because it does not state any grounds for relief. While his original petition

included specific factual allegations and legal claims, the amended petition refers to exhibits

which are not attached. Petitioner is cautioned that his amended petition must set forth each

claim for relief. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 22) is

dismissed with leave to amend; 

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

court, and which names the proper respondent (i.e., the warden of the prison where he is

currently incarcerated) and states all claims and requests for relief, within 30 days of the date of

this order; 

3. Petitioner’s “Motion for Dismissal” (Doc. 17) is disregarded; and

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

habeas corpus application.

DATED: December 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01955-GEB-CMK Document 23 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 2