Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00950-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Craig Wilson,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 05-0950 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Bill Lockyear, Attorney

General, 

Respondent.

-oOoPetitioner, a state prisoner with counsel, challenges a

judgment of the Solano County Superior Court pursuant to which he

is on probation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

June 3, 2005, the court directed petitioner to file an 

amended petition because he named as respondent Bill Lockyear,

Attorney General for the State of California. The court informed 

petitioner the proper respondent is “the state officer who has 

custody” of petitioner. Rule 2(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases;

Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 2(a). The advisory committee

Case 2:05-cv-00950-JAM-TJB Document 9 Filed 08/05/05 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

notes to Rule 2(a) state that when an applicant is on probation

pursuant to the state judgment he is attacking, “[t]he named

respondents shall be the particular probation officer . . .

responsible for supervising the applicant, and the official in

charge of the . . . probation agency, or the state correctional

agency, as appropriate.” 

June 8, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition naming as

respondent a judge of the Solano County Superior Court.

Petitioner has failed to comply with the June 3, 2005,

order. 

Accordingly, I hereby recommend this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: August 4, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00950-JAM-TJB Document 9 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 2