Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05507/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05507-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIASER R. RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Governor, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 07-5507 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER

TO FILE AMENDMENT TO

PETITION NAMING PROPER

RESPONDENT

On October 30, 2007, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional

Training Facility and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the reversal by Governor Schwarzenegger

(“Governor”) of a 2006 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) to

grant petitioner parole. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

BACKGROUND

In 1984, in the Superior Court of Monterey County, petitioner was convicted of

second degree murder. He was sentenced to a term of seventeen years to life in state prison. 

On June 29, 2006, the Board found petitioner suitable for parole. On November 13, 2006,

the Governor reversed the Board’s decision. On September 25, 2007, the California Supreme

Court denied petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition challenging the Governor’s decision. 

Case 3:07-cv-05507-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

This Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall “award the writ or issue an

order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)). 

Petitioner claims the Governor’s reversal of the Board’s decision to grant petitioner

parole was not based on sufficient reliable evidence, in violation of due process. Liberally

construed, petitioner’s claim is cognizable. 

The petition cannot go forward, however, because a proper respondent has not been

named. The proper respondent in a habeas action is “the state officer having custody of the

applicant,” if the applicant is in custody. See Rule 2, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

Rule 2. “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.” Id. Advisory Committee Notes. 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). In the instant petition, petitioner identifies

two respondents: “Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor,” and “State of California,” neither of

which is a proper respondent. Accordingly, before the Court can issue an order to show

cause directing the respondent to answer the petition, petitioner must file an amendment to

the petition to substitute, as the respondent, the warden of the prison where he is currently

incarcerated, as set forth below.

Case 3:07-cv-05507-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/11/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, petitioner must file an amendment to the petition to

name the proper respondent. The amendment must include the caption and civil case number

used in this order (No. C 07-5507 MMC (PR)), and must be titled “Amendment to Petition to

Name Proper Respondent.” Petitioner must file the amendment to the petition within twenty

(20) days of the date this order is filed. Failure to timely file the amendment will result in the

dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 11, 2008 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05507-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3