Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05882/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05882-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Reynaldo Gomez
Petitioner
State of California
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

OSCAR REYNALDO GOMEZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND

PETITION (Doc. 13)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 23, 2004, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this Court. (Doc. 1). 

On February 22, 2005, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to amend the instant

petition to name a proper respondent. (Doc. 12). In that order, the Court pointed out that 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). This individual would normally be 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). 

///

Case 1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 05/06/05 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

On March 1, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to amend or correct the named respondent to

reflect the present warden of the prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated. (Doc. 13). Such a

motion does not comply with the Court’s order that Petitioner file an amended petition naming

the correct 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). 

Moreover, Petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s order also requires dismissal of

his Petition. A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a

court order. Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). The February 22,

2005, order was specific and unambiguous in requiring Petitioner to file an amended petition, not

simply a motion to amend. The Court will permit Petitioner to show good cause why the petition

should not be dismissed for failure to follow the Court’s order by filing an amended petition

within the thirty-day period herein provided.

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner is GRANTED THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this Order,

to SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be dismissed for failing to comply

with the Court’s Order of February 22, 2005 (Doc. 12), requiring Petitioner to file

an amended petition. Petitioner can establish good cause by filing the previously

ordered amended petition which names the correct respondent, within the thirtyday (30) period herein provided. An amended petition should be clearly and

boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number, and

be an original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is advised that the form

petition must set forth all claims for relief, including the facts and arguments in

support of those claims. Petitioner should also note that every pleading to which 

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 05/06/05 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

an amendment is permitted must be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it is

complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local

Rule 15-220. 

2. Petitioner’s motion to amend petition (Doc. 13) is hereby DENIED. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05882-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 3