Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-9/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

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, LAURA 

ELDRIDGE, AND ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER DENYING IN PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE RESPONDENTS

(Doc. No. 26)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EMERGENCY EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

(Doc. No. 26) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OR COURT 

TO PROVIDE PETITIONER WITH § 1983 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition 

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the court are petitioner’s 

motion, labeled an “emergency,” to substitute respondents and for evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 

26). The court does not find the motion warrants “emergency” handling. 

1. Motion to Substitute Respondents

Respondent requests that the court “rename respondents to be lead respondent Tulare 

County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux . . . and/or Tulare County Superior Court Judge Michael B. 

Sheltzer,” which the court construes as a motion to substitute respondents. (Id. at 1). 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 33 Filed 05/24/21 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

27

28

2

“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a 

habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner].’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 

U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242); see also § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show 

cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained”). Here, petitioner 

challenges his 2018 conviction for, inter alia, attempted murder and assault. (Doc. No. 1 at 1-2). 

Although petitioner is currently being detained at Tulare County Jail, petitioner is serving a 40-year 

to life sentence under the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) at Salinas Valley State Prison. (Doc. No. 9). Accordingly, the secretary of the CDCR, 

Kathleen Allison, is the correct respondent in this case.

Petitioner also named Laura Eldridge, warden of the California Health Care Facility and the 

attorney general. Neither of these individuals have custody over petitioner, and therefore should 

be removed as respondents. As to petitioner’s request to substitute the Tulare County sheriff and a 

Tulare County judge, his request is denied. Neither of these individuals have custody over 

petitioner. Accordingly, the clerk of court is directed to remove Laura Eldridge and the attorney 

general as respondents in this case.

2. Motion for Emergency Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner also seeks an emergency evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 26 at 1). As noted above, 

the court finds no basis to deem either aspect of petitioner’s motion as warranting “emergency”

status. With regards to petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing, such a hearing in a habeas 

proceeding is granted only under limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). 

Because no response to the petition has yet been filed, it is premature to hold an evidentiary hearing. 

See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for an 

evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 26) is denied.

Further, in passing, petitioner states he is “dying being denied emergency care as a hostage 

of the County of Tulare and the State of California.” (Id. at 5). To the extent that petitioner believes 

he is being denied medical care, such claims are inappropriate on habeas review. See Badea v. Cox, 

931 F. 2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting purpose of habeas is to challenge “legality or duration” 

of a petitioner’s incarceration, quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). Instead, 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 33 Filed 05/24/21 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

27

28

3

“a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional 

challenge to the conditions of his prison life.” Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Therefore, to the extent

petitioner wishes to challenge his conditions of confinement, he should do so in a § 1983 civil rights 

action. The court will direct the clerk of court to provide petitioner with a § 1983 civil rights 

complaint form.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion to substitute respondent is DENIED. (Doc. No. 26).

2. The clerk of court is directed to remove Laura Eldridge and the attorney general as 

respondents in this case.

3. Petitioner’s motion for emergency evidentiary hearing is DENIED. (Doc. No. 26).

4. The clerk of court is directed to provide petitioner with a blank § 1983 civil rights 

complaint form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 33 Filed 05/24/21 Page 3 of 3