Romero v. Paramo et al

Filing 67

ORDER Sua Sponte Substituting Respondent. The Clerk of the Court will modify the docket to reflect "Scott Kernan, Secretary" as respondent in place of "Jeffrey Beard". Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 11/6/17.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM VINCENT ROMERO, Case No.: 14-1284 GPC (BLM) Petitioner, 12 13 14 ORDER SUA SPONTE SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENT v. SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On May 22, 2014, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed a “Notice of Change of 19 Address and Name of Respondent” on April 3, 2017. (ECF No. 57.) 20 A writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2242; Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. During the pendency of this case, Scott Kernan 22 was appointed as Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 23 succeeding Jeffrey Beard. Accordingly, in order to conform with the requirements of Rule 24 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court hereby sua sponte ORDERS the 25 substitution of Scott Kernan, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 26 Rehabilitation, as Respondent in place of “Jeffrey Beard.” See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 27 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent in § 2254 proceedings may be 28 the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions). 1 14-1284 GPC (BLM) 1 2 3 4 The Clerk of the Court will modify the docket to reflect “Scott Kernan, Secretary” as respondent in place of “Jeffrey Beard.” IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/6/2017 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 14-1284 GPC (BLM)

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?