Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01359/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01359-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California State of
Respondent
Clyde M. Tate
Petitioner

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLYDE M. TATE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA STATE OF, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-01359-AWI WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING FILING

OF AMENDED PETITION

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

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

Case 1:06-cv-01359-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 04/11/07 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

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. 

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

The court further notes that Petitioner’s petition is defective because it lacks page

five.

Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED thirty days from the date of this

order to file a first amended petition, containing all the required pages and naming the

correct respondent. Petitioner’s failure to do so will result in recommendations that this

action be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01359-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2