Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06452/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06452-0/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

HAROLD WALKER, 

Petitioner, 

v.

FRESNO COUNTY JAIL,

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

1:04-cv-06452-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

(Doc. 1)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 26, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant petition in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. (Doc. 1). 

On February 28, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to amend the instant

petition to name a proper respondent. (Doc. 6). In that order, the Court pointed out that 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). This individual would normally be 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). The order clearly

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/06/05 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

indicated that the “Fresno County Jail” was not the individual who had day-to-day control over

Petitioner.

On March 15, 2005, Petitioner filed an “objectioner [sic] to amend petition to name a

proper respondent” (Doc. 7), in which Petitioner contends that the named respondent, Fresno

County Jail, was indeed the proper respondent. (Doc. 7, p. 3). Petitioner’s legal opinion is at

variance with established law and, in any event, his “objection” does not alter the legal reality

that Petitioner has named an improper respondent in this action. Unless Petitioner files an

amended petition naming the proper respondent, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed in this

action and will recommend that the petitioner be dismissed. 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). 

Moreover, Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order also requires dismissal of

his petition. A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a

court order. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). The February 28,

2005, Order was specific and unambiguous in requiring Petitioner to file an amended petition,

not simply to object to the Court’s order. The Court, however, will permit Petitioner to show

good cause why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to follow the Court’s order by

filing an amended petition within the thirty-day period herein provided. In so doing, the Court

notes that in an unrelated filing in this case, Petitioner has indicated to the Court that he is

presently in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and is incarcerated at Wasco

State Prison. If this information is correct, and Petitioner chooses to file an amended petition, he

should name the warden of Wasco State Prison as the proper respondent in his amended petition. 

The warden of Wasco State Prison is Pat Vazquez.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

Petitioner is GRANTED THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this Order, to

SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be dismissed for failing to comply with the

Court’s order of February 28, 2005 (Doc. 6), requiring Petitioner to file an amended

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/06/05 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

petition naming the proper respondent. Petitioner can establish good cause by filing the

previously ordered amended petition which names the correct respondent, within the

thirty-day (30) period herein provided. An amended petition should be clearly and

boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is advised that the form petition must

set forth all claims for relief, including the facts and arguments in support of those claims. 

Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which an amendment is permitted must

be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the

prior or superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06452-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 3