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)
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?