Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00887/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00887-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRAEL ABDELAZIZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF )

FRESNO, “PEOPLE,” ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:12-cv—00887-SKO-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT NO LATER THAN THIRTY

(30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 302 through 304. Pending before the Court is the petition,

which was filed in the United States District Court, Central

District on October 24, 2011, and transferred to this Court on

May 30, 2012.

1

Case 1:12-cv-00887-SKO Document 9 Filed 06/06/12 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

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). 

The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus

either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the

respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001). 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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

II. Petitioner’s Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 

In this case, Petitioner, who alleges that he is an inmate

of the California Men’s Colony at San Luis Obispo (CMC SLO), is

serving a sentence on criminal convictions suffered in the

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, and

is challenging his convictions. Petitioner named as Respondent 

“SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF FRESNO, “PEOPLE.” (Pet. 1.) 

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the

2

Case 1:12-cv-00887-SKO Document 9 Filed 06/06/12 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

respondent to the petition. Habeas Rule 2(a); 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 and thus can

produce 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. 

Here, Petitioner has not named the proper official as

Respondent. The Court notes that the official website of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

reflects that Terri Gonzalez is the warden at CMC SLO.1

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires

dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to

cure this defect by amending the petition to name a proper

respondent. See, In re Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893-94 (9th Cir.

2004). In the interest 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

The Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of

1

accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned, including undisputed information posted on official

web sites. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331,

333 (9th Cir. 1993); Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d

992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website for the CDCR is

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov.

3

Case 1:12-cv-00887-SKO Document 9 Filed 06/06/12 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

Respondent" wherein Petitioner may simply name the proper

respondent in this action.

III. Order Granting Leave to File a Motion to Amend

the Petition

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. Failure to

amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in

the dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:12-cv-00887-SKO Document 9 Filed 06/06/12 Page 4 of 4