1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS FREDERICK LEONARD, No. 2:23-CV-2693-DMC-P 12 Petitioner,

ORDER

13 v. 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1. “A 20 petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the 21 respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 22 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because Petitioner has 23 not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be provided leave to amend to correct this 24 technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is 25 warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local 26 Rule 110. 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is dismissed 3 | with leave to amend; 4 2. Petitioner shall file an amended petition on the form employed by this 5 || court, and which names the proper respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within 6 || 30 days of the date of this order; and 7 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Petitioner the Court’s form 8 | habeas corpus application. 9 10 | Dated: November 30, 2023 Ss..c0_,

DENNIS M. COTA

2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28