From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Law v. Clarke

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Mar 28, 2006
No. CV-05-383-LRS (E.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV-05-383-LRS.

March 28, 2006


ORDER DISMISSING PETITION


By Order filed January 19, 2006, the court advised Petitioner of the deficiencies of his pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and directed him to amend. Specifically, Petitioner failed to name a proper Respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).

Although granted the opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of the initial petition, Mr. Law has not done so. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the Order to Amend Petition, IT IS ORDERED the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, forward a copy to Petitioner and close the file.


Summaries of

Law v. Clarke

United States District Court, E.D. Washington
Mar 28, 2006
No. CV-05-383-LRS (E.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2006)
Case details for

Law v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:AUGUST LEE LAW, Petitioner, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ROB McKENNA, JAMES L…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Washington

Date published: Mar 28, 2006

Citations

No. CV-05-383-LRS (E.D. Wash. Mar. 28, 2006)