Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01467-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stanley Crump
Petitioner
Director of Corrections
Respondent

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY CRUMP,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-1467 AWI DLB HC

SECOND ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT 

[Doc. 12]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 10, 2006 in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The

action was transferred to this Court on October 19, 2006. On October 30, 2006, the Court

directed Petitioner to amend the petition to name a proper Respondent. (Court Doc. 10.) 

Petitioner filed a response on November 16, 2006. (Court Doc. 12.) 

In his response, Petitioner states that he is currently housed at the Miramonte

Conservation Camp and the officer in charge is Lieutenant R.C. Rowland. (Court Doc. 12.) As

stated in the Court’s October 30, 2006, order, normally, “the person having custody of an

incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because

the warden has ‘day-to-day control over’ the petitioner.” Although Petitioner properly named the

Officer of the Director of Corrections in his petition, Petitioner did not give the name of the

Case 1:06-cv-01467-DLB Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 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

27

28

2

individual. Lieutenant R.C. Rowland, is neither the Warden nor the Director of Corrections, and

is therefore not a proper respondent for this action. Accordingly, the Court will grant Petitioner

one additional opportunity to amend the petition to name the proper respondent. 

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order in which to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent. Failure to amend the

petition and state a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01467-DLB Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2