Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01621-1/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

RICHARD LEE SPOONEMORE, No. 2:14-CV-1621-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

CLERK OF THE COURT,

Respondent.

 /

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

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner has not filed a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis, along

with a “certification from the warden or other appropriate officer of the place of confinement

showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in any account in the

institution” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or

paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Specifically, his in forma

pauperis application submitted on August 8, 2014, does not contain a signed certification of

petitioner’s prison trust account. Petitioner will be provided another opportunity to submit either

a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, with the required certification, or pay the

1

Case 2:14-cv-01621-MCE-CMK Document 9 Filed 10/08/14 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

appropriate filing fee. As to the certification requirement, while a copy of petitioner’s prison

trust account statement certified by prison officials is not required to satisfy the requirement,

such a statement will suffice. 

Upon review of the petition, the court observes that petitioner has named the

Clerk of the Yolo County Superior Court as respondent. “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. 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 any part of this order may result in

the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall submit on the form provided by the Clerk of the Court,

within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, with the certification required by Rule 3(a)(2), or pay the appropriate filing fee; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with

leave to amend; 

3. 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 

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

habeas corpus application; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:14-cv-01621-MCE-CMK Document 9 Filed 10/08/14 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

5. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to send petitioner a new form

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner.

DATED: October 8, 2014

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:14-cv-01621-MCE-CMK Document 9 Filed 10/08/14 Page 3 of 3