Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02272/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02272-2/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

I:\COMMON\SKOMAL\Cases\Habeas\Tucker--10cv2272\10cv2272 sub resp.wpd, 32411 -1- 10cv2272

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM T. TUCKER, Civil No. 10–CV-2272-BGS

Petitioner,

ORDER SUA SPONTE SUBSTITUTING

v. RESPONDENT

G. BROWN, Attorney General, et al, 

Respondents.

At the time of filing, Petitioner was apparently housed at California State Prison,

Sacramento and thus named T. Virga, Warden, and G. Brown, Attorney General, as

Respondents. Based on the notice of change of address Petitioner submitted to the Court on

March 21, 2011, it appears Petitioner is no longer housed at California State Prison Sacramento;

rather, it appears he is presently incarcerated at California Correctional Institute in Tehachapi,

California.

G. Brown, the Attorney General of the State of California, is not a proper respondent in

this action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer having custody

of the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. However, “if

the applicant is not presently in custody pursuant to a state judgement against which he seeks

relief but may be subject to such custody in the future,” then “the officer having present custody

of the applicant as well as the attorney general of the state in which the judgment which he seeks

to attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Case 3:10-cv-02272-BGS Document 17 Filed 03/24/11 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

I:\COMMON\SKOMAL\Cases\Habeas\Tucker--10cv2272\10cv2272 sub resp.wpd, 32411 -2- 10cv2272

Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as a respondent in this

action.

A writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Because Petitioner’s place of custody has changed,

so has his custodian. Accordingly, in order to conform with the requirements of Rule 2(a) of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and to avoid changing the Respondent again if Petitioner is

transferred to another prison or paroled, the Court hereby sua sponte ORDERS the substitution

of Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as

Respondent in place of “T. Virga” and “G. Brown.” See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891,

894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent in § 2254 proceedings may be the chief officer

in charge of state penal institutions).

The Clerk of the Court shall modify the docket to reflect “Matthew Cate, Secretary” as

respondent in place of “T. Virga” and “G. Brown.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2011 _________________________________________

Bernard G. Skomal

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02272-BGS Document 17 Filed 03/24/11 Page 2 of 2