Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00488/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Alaniz
Petitioner
People of the 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO ALANIZ )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-cv-0488-LJO WMW HC

ORDER REQUIRING

PETITIONER TO NAME

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.

Case 1:07-cv-00488-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 04/05/07 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

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 the “People of the State of California” 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 motion to correct the respondent in this case. Petitioner’s failure to do

so will result in recommendations that this case be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00488-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 04/05/07 Page 2 of 2