Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01120/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01120-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

ANTHONY ALONZO BLAGROVE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-01120 AWI GSA HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO

FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION

AND NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

DISCUSSION

For a court to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it must have jurisdiction over the

prisoner or his custodian. United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984). A failure to

name the proper respondent deprives a habeas court of personal jurisdiction. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). The

proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's "immediate custodian." 

Brittingham, 982 F.2d at 379, quoting Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F.2d 1114, 1115 (D.C.Cir.1986)

(Bork, J., in chambers). The custodian "is the person having a day-to-day control over the prisoner.

Case 1:08-cv-01120-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 08/27/08 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

That person is the only one who can produce 'the body' of the petitioner." Brittingham, 982 F.2d at

379, quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Parole Commission is not

custodian despite its power to release petitioner). Normally, the custodian 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). 

Petitioner names the "United States of America" as the respondent in this matter. Because

Petitioner did not name his immediate custodian as the respondent in this matter, this Court is

without personal jurisdiction, and the petition must be dismissed. 

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure the 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). In the interest of judicial efficiency, 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 fifteen (15) 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 name a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 27, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01120-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 08/27/08 Page 2 of 2