1

2

3

4

5

6 JS-6

7

8

9

10

11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, Case No. 5:25-cv-00163-ODW-AJR

16 Petitioner,

17 v. JUDGMENT 18 C. LEPE, WARDEN,1 19 Respondent. 20

21 22 1 Petitioner names the “Federal Bureau of Prisons” as the Respondent and indicates 23 that he is currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary in Victorville, California 24 (“USP Victorville”). (Dkt. 1 at 1.) Respondent’s Answer is filed on behalf of C. 25 Lepe, the current Warden of USP Victorville. (Dkt. 13 at 2.) The proper respondent in a habeas action is the person who has custody over the petitioner. 26 See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

(2005) (“[T]he default rule is that 27 the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.”). Accordingly, Warden C. Lepe is substituted in as the proper respondent in 28 this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 Pursuant to the Court’s Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and 2 || Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge, ° IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the above-captioned action is dismissed without prejudice. 6

DATED: October 2, 2025 Ss Big

10 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28