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

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS FOR FAILURE TO

OBEY COURT ORDER AND

FAILURE TO NAME

CORRECT RESPONDENT

OBJECTIONS DUE IN 30

DAYS

On April 5, 2007, the court entered an order informing Petitioner that he had not

named the proper respondent in this case. Petitioner was informed that 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, and that 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.

In this case, Petitioner names the “People of the State of California” as Respondent. 

Case 1:07-cv-00488-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 05/18/07 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

The court informed Petitioner that his failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal

of his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court granted THIRTY (30) days from the

date of service of the order to file a motion to correct the respondent in this case. Petitioner

was expressly warned that his failure to do so would result in recommendations that this

case be dismissed. 

Thirty days have passed and Petitioner has failed to respond to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ of habeas corpus

be DISMISSED for failure to obey a court order and failure to name the proper respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00488-LJO-WMW Document 5 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2