Hubbard v. Corcoran State Prison (4B)

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Petition to Name the People of Kern County as Proper Respondent 14 ; ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Petition Should Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/5/14: Thirty Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZANE HUBBARD, Petitioner, 12 13 14 v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, Respondent. 15 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01758-JLT ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION TO NAME THE PEOPLE OF KERN COUNTY AS PROPER RESPONDENT (Doc. 14) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION THIRTY DAY DEADLINE Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 1). 21 Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on November 14, 2013. 22 (Doc. 8). 23 24 PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 14, 2013, after conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court 25 ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition that, inter alia, named the proper respondent. (Doc. 7). 26 The Court indicated that the proper respondent was the person who had day-to-day control over 27 Petitioner. In Petitioner’s case, that is the warden of his present place of confinement, Connie Gipson. 28 Petitioner filed an amended petition, but did not name Connie Gipson as respondent. (Doc. 9). 1 In an attempt to give Petitioner, a layman, some latitude in these proceedings, the Court issued 1 2 an order on February 21, 2014 that again required Petitioner to name Ms. Gipson as the proper 3 respondent. (Doc. 11). On March 3, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to amend that contained almost 4 three hundred pages of documents, only one of which related to the suggested amendment. (Doc. 14). 5 In his motion to amend, Petitioner named the “People of Kern County” as respondent, not Ms. Gipson. 6 DISCUSSION 7 The Court has twice before advised Petitioner of the correct way to proceed. Petitioner has, on 8 both occasions, ignored the Court’s advice. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion to amend the 9 petition to name the People of Kern County as respondent and will issue this Order to Show Cause 10 why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As has been explained to Petitioner 11 on two prior occasions, if the named respondent is not the individual who has day-to-day control 12 over Petitioner, the Court has no legal authority to grant habeas relief to Petitioner. 13 Petitioner can respond in one of three ways. First, Petitioner can ignore the Court’s requests 14 regarding naming the proper respondent, in which case the Court will dismiss this petition. Second, 15 Petitioner can continue to name an improper respondent, in which case the Court will dismiss the 16 petition. Third, Petitioner can file a short motion requesting to substitute the name of Connie Gipson 17 for that of the current respondent, in which case the petition will be allowed to proceed. The choice is 18 up to Petitioner. ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion to amend the 20 21 caption to name the People of Kern County as respondent (Doc. 14), is DENIED. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 22 23 According, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Petitioner to SHOW CAUSE why the petition 24 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the parties. Petitioner is granted thirty days 25 within which to file a response. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 2 Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in an order dismissing this petition. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 5, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?