Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00306-1/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

JOSEPH BARAJAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:13-cv—00306-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 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 and 303. Pending before

the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which was filed on February

25, 2013, and transferred to this division of this Court on March

4, 2013.

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

1

Case 1:13-cv-00306-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/07/13 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

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 (9th Cir. 1971).

II. Petitioner’s Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 

Petitioner has named as Respondent the People of the State

of California. Petitioner is incarcerated at the California

State Prison at Sacramento (SAC). The official website of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)

reflects that the warden at that facility is Tim Virga.1

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. Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v.

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

websites. 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.

2

Case 1:13-cv-00306-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/07/13 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

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 at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of

state penal institutions, such as the Secretary of the CDCR, is

also appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21

F.3d at 360. 

Although a failure to name the state officer having custody

of a habeas petitioner as respondent deprives the federal court

of personal jurisdiction over the custodian, the requirement of

naming a custodian as respondent is a technical requirement that

a habeas court need not raise sua sponte, and a party may waive

the issue. Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir.

2004). A court must nevertheless consider sua sponte whether the

named respondent has the power to order the petitioner’s release;

if not, the Court may not grant effective relief and should not

hear the case unless the petition is amended to name a respondent

who can grant the desired relief. Id. 

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 or the Secretary of the CDCR. 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

3

Case 1:13-cv-00306-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/07/13 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

to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein

Petitioner may 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

dismissal of the petition for failure to name as respondent a

person with the power to produce the petitioner and failure to

follow an order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:13-cv-00306-SKO Document 6 Filed 03/07/13 Page 4 of 4