Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01395/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01395-1/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 14, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition. 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 face of 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 (9th Cir. 1971).

GREGORY ELL SHEHEE,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01395-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE 

MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION TO NAME 

THE CORRECT RESPONDENT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:12-cv-01395-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/20/12 Page 1 of 3
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

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, 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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent the People of the State of California. However, the 

People of the State of California are not the warden or chief officer of the institution where Petitioner 

is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is presently 

confined at the Coalinga State Hospital, Coalinga, California. The current director or warden of that 

facility is the person Petitioner should name as Respondent.

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 can satisfy this deficiency in his petition by filing a motion entitled "Motion to Amend 

the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper 

respondent in this action.

Case 1:12-cv-01395-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/20/12 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 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 to name a proper 

respondent. Failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in a 

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-01395-AWI-JLT Document 6 Filed 09/20/12 Page 3 of 3