(HC) Selck v. County of Sacramento

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MORREY SELCK, No. 2:21-CV-1499-DAD-DMC-P Petitioner, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to the District Judge’s November 10, 2022, order dismissing Petitioner’s first amended petition and designating the second amended petition at ECF No. 26 as the operative petition. A review of the second amended pleading reveals that it suffers from a number of defects. First, it does not name the proper respondent. “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. Here, Petitioner does not name any custodial 26 …