Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01340-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loreto L. Fernando
Petitioner
John Marshall
Respondent
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORETO L. FERNANDO,

Petitioner,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-01340-DLB (HC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, GRANTING

PETITIONER LEAVE TO SUBMIT

AMENDED PETITION, AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO SEND PETITIONER

BLANK § 2254 FORM PETITION

[Doc. 1]

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 for writ of habeas corpus on September 9, 2008. 

(Court Doc. 1.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of

the United States Magistrate Judge. (Court Doc. 1.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the

clerk to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that 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. A petition for habeas corpus should not

Case 1:08-cv-01340-DLB Document 5 Filed 10/08/08 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

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

B. Failure to Name Proper Respondent

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state

officer having custody of her 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 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). As Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Men’s Colony, in San Luis

Obispo, California, the current warden of the facility is John Marshall. 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 names the People of the State of California, as Respondent. 

Although Petitioner is currently in the custody of the State of California, the State cannot be

considered the person having day-to-day control over Petitioner.

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).

///

Case 1:08-cv-01340-DLB Document 5 Filed 10/08/08 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

C. Signature of Petition Under Penalty of Perjury

Petitioner did not utilize the § 2254 form petition and did not sign his document under the

penalty of perjury. Local Rule 7-131 requires a document submitted to the Court for filing to

include an original signature. In addition, Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

requires a petition for writ of habeas corpus to “be signed under penalty of perjury by the

petitioner.” Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Court will send Petitioner a

blank § 2254 form petition for his use in submitting an Amended Petition, to be signed under

penalty of perjury.

D. Information Relating to Underlying State Court Conviction

As previously stated, Petitioner did not utilize a § 2254 form petition; rather, Petitioner

submitted a self-created document entitled “APPEAL,” in which he claims he was sentenced in

violation of Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270(2007), and its progeny. Petitioner submits

that he raised his claim to the California Supreme Court, and submits a copy of the denial of

review, dated September 19, 2007. 

In regard to Petitioner’s claim, Petitioner did not provide any of the factual information

underlying his criminal conviction such as, the nature of his conviction, name and location of

court in which his conviction and sentence were imposed, the date and terms of his sentence, and

when and where any appeal was filed. Without such critical information, the Court cannot

conduct a proper review of the petition. Accordingly, Petitioner should utilize and complete the

Court’s § 2254 form petition when submitting an amended petition pursuant to this order. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Petitioner is

GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an Amended Petition in

compliance with this order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a form petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 8, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01340-DLB Document 5 Filed 10/08/08 Page 3 of 3