Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00082-1/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

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

ROBERT QUINCY THOMAS,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

/

1:10-cv-00082-DLB (HC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

[Doc. 1]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 15, 2010. The

Court has conducted a preliminary review of the Petition and finds it is without jurisdiction to

hear the case as Petitioner has named an improper 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. 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.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00082-DLB Document 5 Filed 02/12/10 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

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.

In this case, petitioner names the State of California as Respondent. Although Petitioner

is currently in the custody of the State of California, he is currently incarcerated at the California

State Prison in Corcoran and the current Warden of that facility of Derral G. Adams.

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 (2d

Cir. 1976). However, in this case, the Court will give petitioner the opportunity to cure his defect

by amending the petition to name a proper respondent. 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).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed by

AMENDING the Petition to name a proper respondent within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. To comply with this directive petitioner need only

submit a pleading titled “Amendment to Petition” in which he amends the petition

to name a proper respondent. As noted above, that individual is the person having

day to day custody over petitioner - usually the warden of the institution where he

is confined. The Amendment should be clearly and boldly captioned as such and

include the case number referenced above, and be an original signed under penalty

of perjury.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00082-DLB Document 5 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2