Jagade v. Spearman
Filing
13
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 9 Motion to Amend Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/23/13. Jeffery Beard added as Respondent. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN MELFORD JAGADE,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 1:13-cv-01277-LJO-GSA-HC
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO AMEND RESPONDENT
Petitioner,
v.
ECF NO. 9
JEFFERY BEARD,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19
On September 12, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition. Petitioner
20 requests that Jeffery Beard be substituted in place of M. E. Spearman, because Jeffrey Beard has
21 replaced M. E. Spearman as secretary director of CDC prisons.
22
A petitioner seeking habeas relief must name the state officer having custody of him as
23 the respondent to the petition. Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Ortiz24 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21
25 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994). Normally, the person having custody of the prisoner is the warden
26 of the prison because the warden has “day to day control over” the prisoner. Brittingham v.
27 United States, 982. F.2d 378, 279 (9th Cir.1992). However, the chief officer in charge of state
28 penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Therefore,
1
1 Petitioner’s request is proper.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend the petition to name Jeffery Beard as
2
3 Respondent in this matter is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to change the name
4 of Respondent to Jeffery Beard.
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
8
September 23, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?