Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01762/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01762-6/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

Petitioner’s counsel has named what appears to be a proper respondent in place of the State 1

of California named as respondent by petitioner pro se. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must

name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. This person

typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992).” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360

(9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY MICHAEL SMITH, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1762 LKK GGH P

vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, Warden, et al.,

 

Respondents. ORDER 1

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, has filed an

application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner’s counsel filed, on

10/30/07, a document entitled “request for leave for discovery and memorandum of points and

authorities,” which is plainly a discovery motion, wherein it is stated that it is being brought

pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Recently, more than one

defectively noticed motion in more than one case has been filed, necessitating contact from court

clerk staff to inform counsel of the lack of proper notice. (See, e.g., Medina v. Cramer, CIV S06-2534 LKK GGH P, docket entry # 28, filed on 10/23/07, followed, only after counsel had

Case 2:06-cv-01762-RCT Document 25 Filed 11/06/07 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

been alerted by court staff, by docket entry # 29).

The attention of counsel for petitioner is directed to E.D. Local Rule 78-230(b),

which sets forth the proper procedure and requisite time line to follow when noticing a motion on

the court’s law and motion calendar. The undersigned is at a loss to understand why appointed

counsel for habeas petitioners have not routinely followed the appropriate method of noticing

motions for hearing where there are counsel on both sides.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s counsel must properly notice the discovery motion for hearing,

filed on 10/30/07, forthwith, and in any event, within five days; failure to do so will result in the

motion being vacated from the court’s calendar; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to record the name of Richard Kirkland,

Warden, in place of the State of California, as respondent in the docket of this case.

DATED: 11/6/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

smit1762.ntc

Case 2:06-cv-01762-RCT Document 25 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 2