Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02164/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent
Director of Correction
Respondent
Leng Lee
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LENG LEE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2164 GEB DAD P 

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTION, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The in forma pauperis application demonstrates that petitioner is unable to afford

the costs of this suit. Accordingly, petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

“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), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases (“If the petitioner

is currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petitioner must name as respondent the

state officer who has custody.”). A state prisoner is in the custody of the warden of the

institution where he is confined. Here, petitioner has listed as respondents (1) an unnamed

Case 2:06-cv-02164-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 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

director of a state agency that has not been correctly identified and (2) the attorney general of the

State of California. Neither respondent is the warden of petitioner’s institution. The petition will

be dismissed with leave to file an amended petition naming the proper respondent. See Stanley,

21 F.3d at 360.

Petitioner’s habeas petition was accompanied by a motion for the court to

consider his petition without regard to technical errors. Pro se pleadings filed in this court are

considered in accordance with the federal statutes and rules that apply to the case, the local rules

of practice, and relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Petitioner’s motion is unnecessary and will be denied on that ground.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 2, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted;

2. Petitioner’s October 2, 2006 motion to consider the habeas petition without

regard to technical errors is denied; 

3. Petitioner’s habeas petition is dismissed with leave to amend;

4. Petitioner’s amended petition shall be filed within thirty days from the date of

this order; the petition shall be identical to the petition filed on October 2, 2006, except that

petitioner shall name as respondent the warden of the institution where petitioner is confined, the

word “AMENDED” shall appear at the top of the amended petition, and the case number

assigned to this action shall be entered in the space designated for case number.

DATED: November 27, 2006.

DAD:13

lee2164.122

Case 2:06-cv-02164-GEB-DAD Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2