Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01353-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Gerald Anthony Wharry
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD ANTHONY WHARRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01353 OWW LJO HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND 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. 

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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

In this case, Petitioner names the People of the State of California as 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

Case 1:06-cv-01353-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 10/18/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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 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. 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.

ORDER

Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED twenty (20) 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 a recommendation that the petition be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01353-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 10/18/06 Page 2 of 2