Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00794/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00794-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREEM MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00794-BAM HC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1) 

Petitioner proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. 

I. Preliminary Screening

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct 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 that no tenable 

claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th

Cir. 1971).

///

Case 1:15-cv-00794-SKO Document 5 Filed 07/29/15 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

II. Need to Name Proper Respondent

In this case, Petitioner names the People of the State of California as 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). For example, the warden of the state penal institution in which a 

petitioner is an inmate or the sheriff of the county in which a petitioner is jailed are proper 

respondents. If the petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or 

parole officer or 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 Authority, 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 

(9

th Cir. 1970). 

III. Custody Requirement

A federal district court may consider a habeas petition brought by "a person in custody 

pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). This means that, at the 

time the petition is filed, a federal habeas petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or 

sentence under attack. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (citing Carafas v. 

LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). The § 2254 requirement that a petitioner be in custody is 

jurisdictional. See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490 and 494; Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 

(9th Cir. 1998). If the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral 

consequences of the conviction are not themselves sufficient to render a petitioner "in custody" for 

purposes of a § 2254 petition.

The Court cannot determine whether Petitioner in this case was "in custody" when he filed 

his petition on May 26, 2015. Although Petitioner provided a residential address, he alleged that he 

Case 1:15-cv-00794-SKO Document 5 Filed 07/29/15 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

had ten days of another sentence left to serve. See Doc. 1 at 28. Because Petitioner cannot proceed 

with this habeas petition unless he was in custody when he filed it, the amended petition must clearly 

set forth the facts regarding his custody for the conviction challenged in the petition as of May 26, 

2015.

IV. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be dismissed with leave to amend in 

accordance with this order.

2. The Clerk's Office shall send Petitioner a copy of this order and a form for Petition 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

3. Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an amended petition 

naming a proper respondent and articulating the nature of his custody on the filing 

date (May 26, 2015). Plaintiff shall fully complete the form for the amended petition, 

including all claims and the facts supporting each claim. 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days from the date of 

service of this order, this action will be dismissed without further notice for lack of 

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00794-SKO Document 5 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 3