Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01107/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01107-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LERENZO HOKES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNNAMED, )

)

Respondent. )

)

___________________________________ )

CV F 05-1107 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DIRECTING

PETITIONER TO NAME

CORRECT RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this court. 

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. 

Case 1:05-cv-01107-AWI -WMW Document 17 Filed 04/20/06 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 2

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, in this case, the Court will give petitioner the

opportunity to cure his 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).

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

of this order to file a first amended petition in this case naming the correct Respondent. 

Petitioner’s failure to do so will result in findings and recommendations that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01107-AWI -WMW Document 17 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2