Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00678/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00678-2/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

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0678 REC DLB HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on May 17, 2005. Petitioner

raises ten claims for relief including, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, insufficient

evidence, jury instructional error, cruel and unusual punishment, and trial court error. 

A. Improper 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,

Case 1:05-cv-00678-REC-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/16/05 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

2

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. Where a petitioner is on

probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in

charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 

In this case, petitioner names the People of the State of California as Respondent. 

Although Petitioner is currently in the custody of the State, the State of California cannot be

considered the person having day-to-day control over Petitioner.

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); see, also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd

Cir. 1976). However, in this case, the Court will give petitioner the opportunity to cure his defect

by amending the petition to name a proper respondent. 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).

B. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by

a petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct.

1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9th Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

Case 1:05-cv-00678-REC-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/16/05 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

1A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that includes

the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

3

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a

federal constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133

F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court

violated his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.” 

Duncan, 513 U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

On the form petition, Petitioner indicates that he raised all but the ineffective assistance

of appellate counsel claims on direct appeal to the California Supreme Court. Petitioner

indicates that he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Tulare County Superior Court

raising his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. However, Petitioner does not

indicate whether he sought relief at the California Supreme Court as to those claims. Because it

is unclear if all of the claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus

were exhausted in the state’s highest court, Petitioner will be ordered to show cause regarding

exhaustion. If possible, Petitioner should present to the Court documentary evidence that the

claims were indeed presented to the California Supreme Court.1

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order Petitioner SHALL

SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed by AMENDING the

Petition to name a proper respondent. To comply with this directive petitioner

need only submit a pleading titled “Amendment to Petition” in which he amends

the petition to name a proper respondent. As noted above, that individual is the

person having day to day custody over petitioner - usually the warden of the

institution where he is confined. The Amendment should be clearly and boldly

captioned as such and include the case number; and 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall show

Case 1:05-cv-00678-REC-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/16/05 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

4

cause as to what claims, if any, were presented to the state’s highest court; and

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00678-REC-DLB Document 8 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 4