Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00525/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00525-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY N. NIXON,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00525-SAB-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE 

TO FILE MOTION TO AMEND 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. He has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

DISCUSSION

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 (9th Cir. 1971).

In this case, Petitioner fails to name a respondent. A petitioner seeking habeas corpus 

Case 1:14-cv-00525-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 05/22/14 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

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, 21 F.3d at 360. 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). 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 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.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-00525-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 05/22/14 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

ORDER

Accordingly, 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 and name a proper respondent. 

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

for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00525-LJO-SAB Document 14 Filed 05/22/14 Page 3 of 3