Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00714/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00714-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT L. HUGHES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-00714 AWI LJO HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION

WITH LEAVE TO RENEW

[Doc. #10]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

[Doc. #11]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Following a preliminary review of the petition, on August 21, 2006, the undersigned granted

Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend the petition to name a proper respondent. Petitioner had

named the People of California as respondent. Petitioner was advised that under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

he must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition, such as the

warden of his institution. 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). 

On September 12, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition to name a proper

respondent. Petitioner seeks to name Deputy Attorney General Catherine G. Tennant and Deputy

District Attorney Mike Frye as respondents in this matter. Petitioner is advised that these individuals

Case 1:06-cv-00714-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/15/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

are not appropriate respondents in this matter. Petitioner is again advised that he must name the state

officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. As previously stated, 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.

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 Petitioner will be given one more opportunity to cure the 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). Failure to do so will result in a recommendation

that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Also on September 12, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to appoint counsel. There currently

exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See e.g., Anderson v.

Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d th

773 (8 Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the th

appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c),

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the Court does not find that the interests

of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00714-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/15/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) 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. In addition,

Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00714-DLB Document 12 Filed 09/15/06 Page 3 of 3