Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00771/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Thomas Earl Putney
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on May 23, 2013, 

challenging a January 21, 2011 conviction in the Fresno County Superior Court for possession of a 

dirk or dagger, resulting in a sentence of 25-years-to-life. (Doc. 1). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 

to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify 

the petitioner.

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, 

THOMAS EARL PUTNEY,

 Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00771-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO SUBMIT 

AN AMENDED PETITION

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO 

SEND PETITIONER A FORM FOR FILING 

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 

U.S.C. § 2254

Case 1:13-cv-00771-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 4
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

or after an answer to the petition has been filed. 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). 

B. Insufficient Information And Failure To State A Cognizable Habeas Claim.

A preliminary review of the petition indicates that Petitioner has not provided sufficient 

information regarding his claims for this case to proceed. 

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition:

“...shall specify all the grounds for relief which are available to the petitioner and 

of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge and 

shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.”

Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in 

the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “...’[N]otice’

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of 

constitutional error.’” Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 

75, n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 1621 (1977). 

Here, the petition contains no claims whatever. Instead, where the form petition provides 

space for Petitioner to list his claims, Petitioner has indicated: “I have no way to do this. Please see 

enclosed letter and supporting legal papers.” (Doc. 1, p. 6). However, there are no supporting legal 

papers or letter filed with the Court. Accordingly, the petition contains no claims and, therefore, the 

Court is unable to conduct a preliminary review of the petition. Petitioner will be permitted to file an 

amended petition containing cognizable federal habeas claims. 

C. Failure to Name A Proper 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). The chief 

Case 1:13-cv-00771-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/28/13 Page 2 of 4
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

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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent the “People of the State of California.” However, 

the People of the State of California is not the warden or chief officer of the institution where 

Petitioner is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is 

presently confined at the California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California. The current director or 

warden of that facility is the person Petitioner should name 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, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the 

petition to name a proper respondent, i.e., 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 any amended petition, Petitioner must name a 

proper respondent.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the instant petition in deficient. Petitioner will be required to 

file an amended petition containing sufficient information for the Court to proceed with the case and 

naming the proper respondent to confer jurisdiction over the parties.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is 

GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a FIRST

AMENDED PETITION that is in compliance with this Order. The Clerk of the Court is 

DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for petitioners filing pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. 

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-00771-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/28/13 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00771-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 05/28/13 Page 4 of 4