Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01615/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01615-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Martin Biter
Respondent
Mario Lara
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

In this action, Petitioner has not named the person who has day-to-day custody of him as the 

respondent. As a result, the Court must dismiss the petition unless Petitioner names a proper 

respondent.

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, 

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). 

MARIO LARA,

 Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01615-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO AMEND

PETITION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-01615-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 3
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

B. 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, 21 F.3d at 360. 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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent “People of California.” However, “People 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 Kern Valley 

State Prison, Delano, California. The current director or warden of that facility is Martin Biter. This 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, such as 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 the interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, 

Petitioner can satisfy this deficiency in his petition by filing a motion entitled "Motion to Amend 

the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent 

in this action.

Case 1:15-cv-01615-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a 

Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent. 

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: October 28, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01615-LJO-JLT Document 4 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 3