Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00436/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00436-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE M. TRINIDAD,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00436-GSA (HC)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO 

FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION 

AND NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 

review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 

plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 

Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 

A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 

Case 1:15-cv-00436-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

In this case, Petitioner names “People of the State of California” as the Respondent. It is 

insufficient to name “People of the State of California” as the Respondent. A petitioner seeking 

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as 

the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. 

Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 

(9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden 

of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control 

over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also, 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the chief officer 

in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 

360. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition 

for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 

1326 (9th Cir. 1970). However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect 

by amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such as the name of the warden of his 

facility. See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other 

grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) (en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name 

proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In the 

interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner 

may file a motion entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein 

Petitioner may name the proper respondent in this action.

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-00436-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days 

from the date of service of this order in which to file a motion to amend the instant petition and 

name a proper respondent. Failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result 

in the petition being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00436-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3