Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01047/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01047-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

VICTOR BAGHA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES PAROLE )

COMMISSION, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:10-CV-01047 OWW SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

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 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

For a court to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it must have jurisdiction over the

prisoner or his custodian. United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984). A failure to

name the proper respondent deprives a habeas court of personal jurisdiction. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). The

proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's "immediate custodian."

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-01047-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 07/13/10 Page 1 of 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

Brittingham, 982 F.2d at 379, quoting Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F.2d 1114, 1115 (D.C.Cir.1986)

(Bork, J., in chambers); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2242. The custodian "is the person having a day-to-day

control over the prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce 'the body' of the petitioner."

Brittingham, 982 F.2d at 379, quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Parole

Commission is not custodian despite its power to release petitioner). Normally, the custodian 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). 

Petitioner names the "United States Parole Commission" as the respondent in this matter.

This is not a proper respondent. Because Petitioner did not name his immediate custodian as the

respondent in this matter, this Court is without personal jurisdiction, and the petition must be

dismissed. 

However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure the defect by amending the

petition to name a proper respondent. 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 interest 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 fifteen (15) 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 name a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-01047-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2