Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00294/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00294-6/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LISA MARIE PEREZ, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DIRK WILLIAMS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:19-cv-00294 DAD AC 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus 

action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed various motions that are pending 

before the court. The court will address each motion in turn. 

 Petitioner has first filed a motion to substitute parties based on her name change. ECF 

No. 62. The docket has already been updated to reflect petitioner’s correct name of Lisa Perez. 

Therefore, the motion is granted. The court will also substitute Dirk Williams, the Warden of the 

California Institution for Women, as the proper respondent in this matter since petitioner is 

incarcerated at that facility. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under § 

2254; Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). All future filings shall reflect the correct case caption indicated 

above. 

Petitioner has also filed a motion for transcripts. ECF No. 63. However, the case caption 

reflects that petitioner intended to file this motion in the Butte County Superior Court. ECF No. 

Case 2:19-cv-00294-DAD-AC Document 73 Filed 04/02/24 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 

2 

63. A review of the docket also indicates that no hearings have been held in this case. Thus, 

there are no transcripts to provide to petitioner. Accordingly, the motion is denied as moot. 

Lastly, petitioner has filed a motion to exceed the page limitation for her traverse, to the 

extent that there is one. ECF No. 72. Petitioner is informed that the undersigned has a Standing 

Order available on the court’s website that limits reply briefs in civil cases to 10 pages, not 

including the index, table of contents, table of cases, and exhibits. Since petitioner is only 

requesting that “the appendices be exempt from the page limit,” the motion is granted as 

consistent with the court’s Standing Order. However, petitioner is cautioned not to duplicate 

any of the documents that have already been filed in her 96-page Appendix in Support of 

the § 2254 Petition. ECF No. 58. The filing of duplicative documents only serves to slow the 

court’s ability to resolve petitioner’s § 2254 application on the merits. 

Based on the extension of time that the court granted on March 4, 2024, petitioner’s 

traverse is due on or before June 10, 2024. Following the expiration of this deadline, petitioner’s 

§ 2254 application will be deemed submitted on the papers. No further filings will be entertained 

by the court until such time as the court issues Findings and Recommendations on the pending § 

2254 petition. Any pleadings filed in violation of this order will be stricken from the docket. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

` 1. Petitioner’s motion to substitute parties (ECF No. 62) is granted. 

 2. The Clerk of Court shall substitute Dirk Williams as the proper respondent in this case. 

 3. Petitioner’s motion for transcripts (ECF No. 63) is denied as moot. 

 4. Petitioner’s motion to exceed the page limit (ECF No. 72) is granted to the extent that 

any appendix is not included in the page limitation. 

DATED: April 1, 2024 

Case 2:19-cv-00294-DAD-AC Document 73 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 2