Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00286/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00286-3/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

IRVIN DONALD ANDERSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-00286 LJO GSA HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO

NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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

In this case, Petitioner names 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.

Case 1:08-cv-00286-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/22/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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. 

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).

On March 7, 2008, Petitioner was notified of his failure to name a proper respondent. He was given

an opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such as the

warden of his facility, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30)

days have passed, and Petitioner has not cured the defect. Petitioner was informed that failure to

amend the petition and state a proper respondent would result in a recommendation that the petition

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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

Case 1:08-cv-00286-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/22/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

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: April 21, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00286-LJO-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/22/08 Page 3 of 3