Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01402-2/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

JACOB THOMAS DEMASTERS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1402 AWI DLB HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO

AMEND THE PETITION AND NAME A

PROPER RESPONDENT

(Document #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 filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on November 8, 2005.

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 face of 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 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

A. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent

In this case, Petitioner names the People of the State of California as Respondent. 

Case 1:05-cv-01402-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/20/06 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

Petitioner is incarcerated at North Kern State Prison, at Delano, California. The acting warden at

that facility is Lea Ann Chrones.

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, 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. 

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 his 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 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.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order in which to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent. Failure to amend the

petition and state a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that the petition be

Case 1:05-cv-01402-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/20/06 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

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01402-DLB Document 8 Filed 03/20/06 Page 3 of 3