Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01907-0/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on November 21, 2013 

challenging his 2011 conviction in the Tulare County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify 

the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that 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. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed 

ERIC MANFREDI,

 Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01907-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

A MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION TO 

NAME THE PROPER RESPONDENT

30-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:13-cv-01907-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 3
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

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 (9th Cir. 1971). 

B. Failure to Name A Proper Respondent.

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; 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 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-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; 

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his 

probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state 

correctional agency. Id. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent the “Department of Corrections of the State of 

California.” However, the Department of Corrections of the State of California is not the warden or 

chief officer of the institution where Petitioner is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control 

over Petitioner. Petitioner is presently confined at the Pleasant Valley State Prison, Coalinga, 

California. The current director or warden of that facility, P. D. Brazelton, is the person Petitioner 

should name as Respondent.

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 warden of his facility. 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 

Case 1:13-cv-01907-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 3
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

need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner can satisfy this deficiency in his petition by 

filing a motion entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent," wherein 

Petitioner may name the proper respondent in this action.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a 

Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent in compliance with this 

Order. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01907-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 3