Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06854/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06854-0/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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD ARMSTRONG,

Petitioner,

v.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 06-6854 SI (pr)

ORDER FOR AMENDMENT

Howard Armstrong, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, filed this

pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His petition is

before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. The court will require an amendment to the petition to substitute in a proper

respondent. 

The respondent in a habeas action is "the state officer having custody of the applicant"

if the applicant is in custody. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. "The proper

person to be served in the usual case is either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner

is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions." Rule 2, advisory

committee's notes. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). Failure to name a petitioner's

custodian as a respondent deprives the federal court of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley v.

California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Case 3:06-cv-06854-SI Document 5 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Petitioner named the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") as the respondent, but there is

no indication that the BPH has custody of him. The fact that the BPH made the decision that

allegedly causes petitioner's unlawful detention does not make the BPH his custodian. The

warden has custody of petitioner and is the proper respondent in a challenge to a parole denial

just as the warden is the proper respondent in a challenge to a conviction, even though he or she

may not have been involved in either decision. 

Petitioner must file an amendment to his petition for writ of habeas corpus to name the

proper respondent. The document should have the case name and complete case number used

on this order, should be labeled "Amendment To Petition," and need merely state "Petitioner

files this amendment to his petition for writ of habeas corpus to substitute [insert name here] as

the respondent in this action." In the place indicated, petitioner should provide the name of the

warden of his prison. Petitioner must sign and file his amendment no later than January 26,

2007. Failure to file the amendment by the deadline will result in the dismissal of this action for

lack of jurisdiction.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 21, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06854-SI Document 5 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2