Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02055/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02055-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of California
Respondent
Joseph Arch Sherman
Petitioner
Yolo County Chief Probation Officer
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ARCH SHERMAN, No. CIV S-07-2055-WBS-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

YOLO COUNTY CHIEF

PROBATION OFFICER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s petition for a writ

of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), filed on October 1, 2007. Petitioner has named the Attorney General

of the State of California as a respondent to this action. “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief

must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” 

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a),

Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Here, petitioner has correctly named the Yolo

County Chief Probation Officer, who has “custody” over probationers like petitioner. Given that

the Attorney General of the State of California has no day-to-day custody over petitioner, he is

Case 2:07-cv-02055-WBS-CMK Document 12 Filed 12/19/07 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

2

not a proper respondent and should be dismissed. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the Attorney General of

the State of California be dismissed as a respondent to this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 18, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02055-WBS-CMK Document 12 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2