Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01180/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01180-0/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

WALTER ORDUNO,

Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01180-EPG-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE 

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER 

RESPONDENT

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In this matter, Petitioner fails to name any 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), Rules Governing Section 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. 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.

A petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas 

petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360

Case 1:16-cv-01180-EPG Document 4 Filed 10/17/16 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

2

(9th Cir. 1994). 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.

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 petition to 

name a proper respondent.

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: October 17, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01180-EPG Document 4 Filed 10/17/16 Page 2 of 2