Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00969/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00969-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan Clay
Respondent
Melvin Lee Williams
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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN LEE WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00969 AWI LJO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[Doc. #10]

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A SECOND MOTION TO AMEND

TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On October 31, 2006, the undersigned issued an order advising Petitioner that the petition

was deficient. In particular, the petition failed to name a proper respondent. Petitioner was granted

leave to file a motion to amend the petition and name a proper respondent in order to avoid suffering 

dismissal of the action.

On November 13, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition to name a proper

respondent. However, in his motion Petitioner failed to name a respondent, such as the warden of his

institution. In the caption of his motion, Petitioner names the respondent as “People of the State of

California, et al., Ivan Clay, Respondent.” As discussed in the previous order, it is inappropriate to

name the People of the State of California as the respondent. Second, Petitioner has not identified

Ivan Clay to the Court. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for

lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326

Case 1:06-cv-00969-AWI -JMD Document 11 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

(9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976).

However, the Court will give Petitioner one final opportunity to cure this defect by amending the

petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 478

F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en

banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of

Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). Petitioner may file a motion entitled "Second

Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the

proper respondent in this action.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition is DENIED without prejudice, and

Petitioner is GRANTED twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order in which to file a

motion 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/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00969-AWI -JMD Document 11 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2