Hubbard v. Corcoran State Prison (4B)

Filing 17

ORDER CONSTRUING Response to Order to Show Cause as Motion to Amend Caption to name Proper Respondent 16 ; ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Caption to Name Proper Respondent 16 ; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Substitute Connie Gipson as Proper Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/25/14. (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 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01758-JLT ORDER CONSTRUING RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS MOTION TO AMEND CAPTION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT (Doc. 16) ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT (Doc. 16) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SUBSTITUTE CONNIE GIPSON AS PROPER RESPONDENT 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on October 23, 2013. (Doc. 1). 22 Petitioner filed his written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on November 14, 2013. 23 (Doc. 8). 24 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 at the time that the proper respondent was the person who had day-to-day control 27 over Petitioner. In Petitioner’s case, that is the warden of his present place of confinement, Connie 28 1 1 Gipson. Petitioner filed an amended petition, but did not name Connie Gipson as respondent. (Doc. 2 9). 3 On February 21, 2014, the Court issued another order that, again, required Petitioner to name 4 Ms. Gipson as the proper respondent. (Doc. 11). On March 3, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to 5 amend that contained almost three hundred pages of documents, only one of which related to the 6 suggested amendment. (Doc. 14). In his motion to amend, Petitioner named the “People of Kern 7 County” as respondent, not Ms. Gipson. On March 5, 2014, the Court issued an order denying 8 Petitioner’s motion to name the People of Kern County as Respondent and Ordered Petitioner to Show 9 Cause why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Respondent. 10 11 (Doc. 15). The Order to Show Cause gave Petitioner thirty days within which to file a response. On March 17, 2014, Petitioner filed a response to the Order to Show Cause in which he 12 appears to agree that Connie Gipson should be the named Respondent. (Doc. 16). The Court 13 construes Petitioner’s response to the Order to Show Cause as a motion to amend the caption to reflect 14 the proper Respondent and will grant said motion. ORDER 15 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 17 1. The Court CONSTRUES the response to the Order to Show cause (Doc. 16), filed on March 17, 2014, as a motion to amend the caption to name the proper respondent. 18 19 2. Petitioner’s construed motion to amend the caption to name the proper respondent (Doc. 16), is GRANTED. 20 21 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to substitute the name of Connie Gipson as proper Respondent in this action. 22 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 25, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?