Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00173/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00173-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Prison Terms
Respondent
Ronnie McNabb
Petitioner
Warden, C.S.P. Corcoran
Respondent

Document Text:

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

RONNIE McNABB,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, C.S.P. CORCORAN, 

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00173 LJO SMS HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

[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 February 4, 2008. 

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

Case 1:08-cv-00173-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 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

2

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. 

In this case, Petitioner names the “WARDEN, C.S.P. Corcoran” and “Board of Prison

Terms” as Respondents. Although Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, at Corcoran State Prison, Petitioner must name

the actual person having day-to-day control over Petitioner, i.e. the Warden at Corcoran State

Prison.

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, 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 21, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

Case 1:08-cv-00173-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 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

3

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00173-LJO -SMS Document 5 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3