Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00725-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felker
Respondent
David Charles Thatcher
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 07-00725 AWI DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

CHANGE NAME OF RESPONDENT AND

DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION AS MOOT

[Docs. 7, 8]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. When the petition was initially filed, Petitioner neglected to name

a Respondent. 

A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus must name the state officer who

has custody of the petitioner as the respondent. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases;

Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). 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. Brittingham v.

United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley v. California Supreme Court,

21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

On May 24, 2007, the court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in that Petitioner had not named a proper Respondent. On May

30, 2007, Petitioner filed an amendment to the petition naming Warden Felker as the

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 06/13/07 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

Respondent. Petitioner’s amendment is dated May 23, 2007, and filed with the Court on May 29,

2007. Thus, Petitioner submitted his amendment prior to the Court’s May 24, 2007. 

Nonetheless, Petitioner’s amendment adequately addresses and cures the defect outlined in the

Court’s May 24, 2007. Thus, Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended

petition, filed June 4, 2007, shall be disregarded as MOOT. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to substitute Warden Felker as the

Respondent in this action; and

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended petition is

DISREGARDED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2