Covello

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAKQUAN D. SOLOMON, No. 2:24-CV-0924-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner,

ORDER

13 v. 14 CDCR, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1, 19 which pleading is defective as lacking designation of any state officer defendant as having 20 custody of Petitioner. 21 It is well established that a “ petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer 22 having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme 23 Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 24 2254 Cases. Because Petitioner has not named the appropriate state officer, Petitioner will be 25 provided leave to amend to correct this technical defect by naming the correct respondent. See 26 Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order…