Jones

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID SAMPSON HUNTER, No. 2:20-CV-1097-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition 19 (Doc. 1). “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him 20 or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 21 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because 22 Petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided leave to amend 23 to correct this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 24 Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this 25 action. See Local Rule 110. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 …