Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01751-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD McKINNEY,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA HARRIS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01751-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE 

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER 

RESPONDENT

(ECF No. 1)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Petitioner challenges his October 16, 2012, conviction in Kings 

County Superior Court for continuous sexual abuse. (Pet., ECF No. 1).

I.

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 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 

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/01/14 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

that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 

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

In this case, Petitioner names “Kamala Harris” as the Respondent. It is insufficient to 

name the Attorney General of California as Respondent when a petitioner is in custody under a 

state-court judgment. Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing 22541 Cases. 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; OrtizSandoval 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 "dayto-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. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent 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 name of the warden of his facility

or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions. 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.

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/01/14 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

II.

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. 

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

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01751-SAB Document 5 Filed 12/01/14 Page 3 of 3