Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01483-2/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

NANCY ABSTON,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE FOR THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-01483-SMS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of California, on September 17, 2008. (Court Doc. 1.) By order

of September 30, 2008, the petition was transferred to this Court. (Court Doc. 3.) 

The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the Petition and finds it is without

jurisdiction to hear the case as Petitioner has named an improper respondent. 

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state

officer having custody of her 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

Case 1:08-cv-01483-SMS Document 9 Filed 10/10/08 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

378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see, also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th

Cir. 1994). As Petitioner is currently in the custody of the Valley State Prison for Women, in

Chowchilla, California, the current warden of the facility is Tina Hornbeak. 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 her 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 of California, the State cannot be

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

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of her 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 her

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).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed by

AMENDING the Petition to name a proper respondent within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. To comply with this directive petitioner need

only submit a pleading titled “Amendment to Petition” in which she 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 she is confined. The Amendment should be clearly and boldly

captioned as such and include the case number referenced above, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Case 1:08-cv-01483-SMS Document 9 Filed 10/10/08 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01483-SMS Document 9 Filed 10/10/08 Page 3 of 3