Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00520-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Conrad Gulbronson
Petitioner
Michele Verderosa
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CONRAD GULBRONSON, No. 2:15-cv-0520-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

MICHELE VERDEROSA,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed a complete

application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a “certification from the warden or other

appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that

the petitioner has in any account in the institution” as required by Rule 3(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, or paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),

1915(a). Petitioner will be provided the opportunity to submit either a completed application to

proceed in forma pauperis, with the required certification, or pay the appropriate filing fee. As to

the certification requirement, while a copy of petitioner’s prison trust account statement certified

by prison officials is not required to satisfy the requirement, such a statement will suffice. 

Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this

action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule

110.

1

Case 2:15-cv-00520-CMK Document 8 Filed 12/04/15 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

In addition, pending before the court is petitioner’s amended petition (Doc. 1). “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), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Here, petitioner names

a Lassen County Superior Court Judge as the respondent to his petition. Because petitioner has

not named the appropriate state officer, petitioner will be provided leave to amend to correct this

technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is

warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local

Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall submit on the form provided by the Clerk of the Court,

within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, with the certification required by Rule 3(a)(2), or pay the appropriate filing fee; 

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with

leave to amend; 

3. Petitioner shall file an amended petition which names the proper

respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within 30 days of the date of this order;

and 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a new form

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner and the court’s form Habeas Corpus

Application.

DATED: December 3, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:15-cv-00520-CMK Document 8 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 2