Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01723/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01723-0/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

ANGEL M. GARZA,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01723-SKO-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE 

TO FILE MOTION TO AMEND TO NAME 

A PROPER RESPONDENT

[THIRTY DAY DEADLINE]

On December 15, 2023, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. He 

named the People of the State of California as Respondent in this matter. However, the People 

are not a proper respondent. Petitioner will be granted leave to amend the respondent in order to 

avoid dismissal of the action.

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, 

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/19/23 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

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

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). 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. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 

378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 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, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this 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). In the interests 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.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/19/23 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

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty 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 state a proper respondent will result in dismissal of the petition 

for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01723-JLT-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/19/23 Page 3 of 3