Opinion
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00306-JLT
05-20-2015
GARY DALE BARGER, Petitioner, v. CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CHANGE RESPONDENT'S NAME (Doc. 13) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD (Doc. 14) ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED PETITION (Docs. 13 & 14) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO SEND PETITIONER A BLANK SEC. 2254 FORM THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
This petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and transferred to this Court on February 25, 2015. (Docs. 1; 4; 5). After conducting a preliminary screening of the petition, the Court, on March 5, 2015, issued an order requiring Petitioner to file a first amended petition because (1) Petitioner's claims were unintelligible; (2) Petitioner had not provided sufficient information to determine whether the claims in the petition were exhausted; and (3) it appeared that the petition may be untimely and additional information was required from Petitioner to make a final determination. (Doc. 8). The Court granted Petitioner thirty days within which to file an amended petition.
On March 23, 2015, Petitioner filed a virtually unintelligible motion that appears to request three things: (1) that the Court change the name of Respondent to Ventura Superior Court; (2) that the Court augment the record in some unspecified way; and (3) that Petitioner be granted an additional thirty days within which to file his amended petition. (Doc. 9). On March 30, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for change of venue to the Ventura County Superior Court. (Doc. 11).
On April 17, 2015, the Court granted the request for an extension of time to file the amended petition, but denied all other motions. (Doc. 12). On May 6, 2015, Petitioner filed yet another motion to change the name of the Respondent, a motion to augment the record, and another request for an extension of time to file the amended petition. (Docs. 13 & 14).
DISCUSSION
A. Name of Respondent
Petitioner has once again requested that this Court permit him to change the name of the Respondent to "California Criminal Justice System Employees." (Doc. 13). As the Court has already explained, the only respondent over whom this Court can exert habeas jurisdiction is the warden of Petitioner's current place of incarceration . If the name of Respondent is changed to any other individual, the Court would lack jurisdiction and have to dismiss the petition. Accordingly, that motion will be denied. B. Augmenting the Record
Petitioner's second request to expand the record is as unintelligible as his first motion. Petitioner provides no details of what documents or evidence he wishes to have included in the record. Moreover, the usual procedure in federal habeas cases is to require Respondent to file the entire record if and when the Court determines that an answer to the petition must be filed. Accordingly, until Petitioner can articulate specific details and grounds justifying a deviation from the normal procedures the Court employees in these types of cases, Petitioner's requests to expand the record will be denied. C. Extension of Time
Petitioner appears to have requested a second extension of time of thirty days within which to file his first amended petition. The Court will grant the requested extension; however, no further extensions will be granted.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Petitioner's motion for change of Respondent's name (Doc. 13), is DENIED;
2. Petitioner's motion to augment the record (Doc. 14), is DENIED;
3. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a first amended petition (Docs. 13 & 14) is GRANTED. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order within which to file his amended petition. No further extensions of time will be granted.
4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank Sec. 2254 form petition.
Petitioner is forewarned that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss the petition . IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20 , 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE