Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01143/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01143-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RAY DYNES,

Petitioner,

v.

FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01143-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE 

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER 

RESPONDENT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254.

I.

DISCUSSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires preliminary review of a 

habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 

to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

A. Leave to Amend Petition to Name a Proper Respondent

In this case, Petitioner names “Fresno County Superior Court” as the Respondent. It is 

insufficient to name “Fresno County Superior Court” as the Respondent. A petitioner seeking 

habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him 

Case 1:16-cv-01143-SAB Document 7 Filed 08/08/16 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

as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; OrtizSandoval 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. Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 

355 (9th Cir. 2004); Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of state penal 

institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz-Sandoval, 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 personal jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 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 or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions. See Dubrin v. 

California, 720 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013) (petitioner should be granted leave to amend 

petition to name proper respondent). 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.

B. Exhaustion

Also, it appears that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claim in the instant petition. A 

petitioner in state custody who is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus must 

exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The exhaustion doctrine is based on 

comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Rose v. 

Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by 

providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before 

presenting it to the federal court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v.

Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971). 

If Petitioner has not sought relief in the California Supreme Court, the Court cannot 

proceed to the merits of those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). In the instant petition, Petitioner 

states that he sought collateral review in the California Superior Court and the California Court 

Case 1:16-cv-01143-SAB Document 7 Filed 08/08/16 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

of Appeal. (ECF No. 1 at 3–4).1 However, Petitioner states that he has not sought relief in the 

California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 6). Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY ORDERED 

to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this order why the 

petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

II.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order in 

which to file a motion to amend the petition to name a proper respondent; and

2. Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) days from the date 

of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 

state remedies.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order may result in dismissal of the 

petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s failure to prosecute or 

to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-01143-SAB Document 7 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 3