Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00725-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Felker
Respondent
David Charles Thatcher
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CHARLES THATCHER,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 00725 AWI DLB HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition on May 16, 2007. The Court has conducted a

preliminary review of the Petition and finds it is without jurisdiction to hear the case as Petitioner

has named an improper respondent. It does appear from the Petition that Petitioner is confined at

High Desert State Prison in Susanville he has failed to name the warden Tom Felker or any other

person as the Respondent. Petitioner may remedy this failure by amending his Petition to include

a 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

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/24/07 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

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 has failed to name a 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, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed by

AMENDING the Petition to name a proper respondent within thirty (30) days of

the date of service of this order. To comply with this directive petitioner need only

submit a pleading titled “Amendment to Petition” in which he amends the petition

to name a proper respondent. As noted above, that individual is the person having

day to day custody over petitioner - usually the warden of the institution where he

is confined. The Amendment should be clearly and boldly captioned as such and

include the case number referenced above, and be an original signed under penalty

of perjury. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 23, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00725-AWI-DLB Document 4 Filed 05/24/07 Page 2 of 2