Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00621/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00621-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Reed Dorrough
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL REED DORROUGH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

ON HABEAS CORPUS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-cv-0621-OWW WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING

PETITIONER TO NAME

CORRECT RESPONDENT

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-00621-OWW -WMW Document 6 Filed 02/28/07 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. 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 On Habeas Corpus 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).

Accordingly, Petitioner is HEREBY GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of

service of this order to file a first amended petition naming the correct Respondent. 

Petitioner is expressly cautioned that his failure to file such a first amended petition will

result in the dismissal of this petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00621-OWW -WMW Document 6 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 2