Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01353/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01353-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Gerald Anthony Wharry
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD ANTHONY WHARRY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01353 OWW LJO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

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 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 (9 Cir. 1971). th

In this case, Petitioner names the People of the State of California as Respondent. 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. California Supreme Court, 21

F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is

Case 1:06-cv-01353-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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. 

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). 

On October 18, 2006, the undersigned provided Petitioner with an opportunity to cure the

defective petition by amending it 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). Petitioner was granted twenty (20) days to file a motion to

amend the petition to name a proper respondent. Over twenty (20) days have passed, and Petitioner

has not responded to the Court’s order. Petitioner was advised that failure to amend the petition and

name a proper respondent would result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack

of jurisdiction.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) 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)

Case 1:06-cv-01353-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

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: November 29, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01353-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3