Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01585-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVARO VILLA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—01585-SKO-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT NO LATER THAN THIRTY

(30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. Pending before

the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed in this Court

on September 27, 2012.

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

1

Case 1:12-cv-01585-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 10/11/12 Page 1 of 4
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

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). 

The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the

respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001). 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 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Petitioner’s Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 

In this case, Petitioner named as Respondent the Fresno

County Superior Court. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Mount

Bullion Conservation Camp No. 39, which is located in Mariposa,

California. The official website of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) reflects that the camp

commander at that facility is Lt. C. Dean.1

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. Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v.

The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of

1

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned, including undisputed information posted on official

websites. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331,

333 (9th Cir. 1993); Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d

992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website for the CDCR is

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov.

2

Case 1:12-cv-01585-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 10/11/12 Page 2 of 4
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

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 and thus can

produce 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, such as Matthew

Cate, the Secretary of the CDCR, is also appropriate. OrtizSandoval, 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.

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to

cure this defect by amending the petition to name a proper

respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See, In re

Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2004). In the interest 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.

III. Order Granting Leave to File a Motion to Amend

 the Petition

Accordingly, 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

3

Case 1:12-cv-01585-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 10/11/12 Page 3 of 4
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

dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction or failure to

name as respondent a person with the power to produce the

petitioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:12-cv-01585-AWI-SKO Document 4 Filed 10/11/12 Page 4 of 4