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)

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