(HC) Selck v. County of Sacramento

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, No. 2:21-CV-1499-DAD-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 19 the District Judge’s November 10, 2022, order dismissing Petitioner’s first amended petition and 20 designating the second amended petition at ECF No. 26 as the operative petition. 21 A review of the second amended pleading reveals that it suffers from a number of 22 defects. First, it does not name the proper respondent. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief 23 must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” 24 Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), 25 Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Here, Petitioner does not name any custodial 26 …