(HC) Alspaugh v. Superior Court of CA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KENNETH E. ALSPAUGH, No. 2:22-CV-0761-DMC Petitioner, v. ORDER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondents.

17 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because Petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided leave to amend to correct this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 110. / / / / / / / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED…