Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01164-0/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

MICHAEL ROY JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-01164-SMS (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

[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. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to the

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 305(b). 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on June 18, 2010, and challenges the denial of parole.

Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent to review his claim challenging the

execution of his sentence. It is well-established that to provide under section 2241, the petitioner

must name as the respondent the warden of the facility where the he is confined. See Rumsfeld

v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-435 (2004). Section 2242 of Title 28 directs that an application for

a writ of habeas corpus “shall allege . . . the name of the person who has custody over him and by

virtue of what claim or authority, if known.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Thus, when a prisoner files a

section 2241 petition challenging the execution of his sentence, the warden of the penitentiary

where he is confined must be named as the respondent. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 248-

249 (9 Cir. 1989); see also Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9 Cir. 1992) th th

1

Case 1:10-cv-01164-BAM Document 10 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

(reiterating that a federal habeas petitioner’s immediate custodian is the only individual who can

actually produce the body of the petitioner). “Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a

respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.” Stanley v. California Supreme

Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Therefore, because Petitioner has failed to name the

proper respondent in his petition, this Court does not presently have jurisdiction to review it. 

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, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed by

AMENDING the Petition to name a proper respondent within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. To comply with this directive petitioner need

only submit a pleading titled “Amendment to Petition” in which he amends the

petition to name a proper respondent. As noted above, that individual is the

person having day to day custody over petitioner - usually the warden of the

institution where he is confined. The Amendment should be clearly and boldly

captioned as such and include the case number referenced above, and be an

original signed under penalty of perjury; and

2. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of action pursuant to

Local Rule 110. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-01164-BAM Document 10 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2