Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00829/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00829-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen Allison
Respondent
Steven Dean Parks
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DEAN PARKS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., ) 

 )

Respondents. )

)

 )

1:10-cv—00829-SKO-HC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME AND DIRECTIONS

AND FOR CLARIFICATION 

(Docs. 3, 6)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT NO LATER THAN THIRTY

(30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,

including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in

a signed writing filed by Petitioner on May 27, 2010 (doc. 7). 

Pending before the Court are two motions concerning Petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the petition.

///

1

Case 1:10-cv-00829-LJO -SKO Document 8 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 4
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

I. Motions concerning Application to Proceed In Forma

 Pauperis 

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was

granted on May 18, 2010. (Doc. 5.) 

Petitioner has filed two motions pertinent to the

application: 1) a motion for an extension of time and for

directions concerning obtaining trust account information from

his custodial institution (doc. 3, filed May 13, 2010), and 2) a

motion for clarification in which Petitioner submits additional

documentation for his application to proceed in forma pauperis

(doc. 7, filed May 21, 2010). 

Because the motion to proceed in forma pauperis has already

been granted, Petitioner’s motions for an extension of time and

for clarification are DENIED as moot.

II. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). 

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. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

2

Case 1:10-cv-00829-LJO -SKO Document 8 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 4
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

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001). 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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

III. Petitioner’s Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 

In this case, Petitioner named as Respondent the State of

California and the Attorney General of the State of California. 

(Pet. 1.) Petitioner is incarcerated at the California Substance

Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison located in Corcoran,

California (SATF-CSP). The warden at that facility is Kathleen

Allison.

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. Habeas Rule 2(a); 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 where the petitioner is incarcerated because the

warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner and thus can

produce 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

3

Case 1:10-cv-00829-LJO -SKO Document 8 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 4
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

agency. Id. 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires

dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

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, In re

Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2004). In the interest of

judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. 

Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled "Motion to Amend

the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may

name the proper respondent in this action.

IV. Order Granting Leave to File a Motion to Amend

 the Petition

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

date of service of this order in which to file a motion to amend

the instant petition and name a proper respondent. Failure to

amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:10-cv-00829-LJO -SKO Document 8 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 4