Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00652-6/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

DANIEL ALEJANDRO GOMEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00652-LJO-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE

A MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION TO

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. 

On May 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court.

(Doc. 1). 

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

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.

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 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

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. 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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent “the People, ” which has been docketed as

“People of the State of California.” However, neither “the People” nor “People of the State of

California” are the warden of the institution where Petitioner is confined and, thus, do not have

day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is presently incarcerated at California Correctional

Institution, Tehachapi, California. The warden at that facility is William Sullivan.

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent normally 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, 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

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.

ORDER

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.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 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

Failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that

the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00652-LJO -TAG Document 21 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 3