Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00852/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00852-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derral G. Adams
Respondent
County of Merced
Respondent
Raul Joseph Maldonado
Petitioner
People of California
Respondent
Superior Court
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL JOSEPH MALDONADO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:07-cv-00852-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO FILE

MOTION TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO

NAME THE PROPER RESPONDENT

ORDER DIRECTING PETITION TO FILE

MOTION TO AMEND CAPTION WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On June 13, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant federal petition. Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review of each petition for writ

of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the

petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254

Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 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).

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.

Case 1:07-cv-00852-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/23/08 Page 1 of 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

2

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. 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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent the “The People of California” “County of

Merced,” and “Superior Court.” However, neither the People of California, the County of

Merced, or Superior Court 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 Corcoran State Prison, Corcoran, California. The current warden of that facility

is Derral G. Adams. Petitioner should name as Respondent the individual in charge of that

facility.

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 (2d

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 1:07-cv-00852-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 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

3

ORDER

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 to name a proper respondent.

Petitioner is forewarned that failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent

will result in Findings and Recommendations recommending that the petition be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00852-TAG Document 7 Filed 01/23/08 Page 3 of 3