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)

Download PDF
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?