Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01609/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01609-2/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

JUSTIN LOMAKO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS )

AND REHABILITATION, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-CV-01609 LJO SMS HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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

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 v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However,

Case 1:07-cv-01609-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/23/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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. 

On November 29, 2007, the undersigned issued an order notifying Petitioner that he had

failed to name a proper respondent. Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days to file a motion to amend

the petition to cure the defect. He has failed to do so. 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).

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after being served with a

copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if

served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01609-LJO -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2