Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00851-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Darrell E. Kilgore
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
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

DARRELL E. KILGORE,

Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00851 OWW DLB HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

[Doc. 6]

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 July 6, 2006. By order of

August 10, 2006, the Court directed Petitioner to submit a complete in forma pauperis application

and amended petition as the original petition did not fill out the petition form. (Court Doc. 4.) 

On September 7, 2006, Petitioner submitted a motion for proceed in forma pauperis and an

amended petition. (Court Docs. 5-6.) 

I. Naming of 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 the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because

Case 1:06-cv-00851-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 09/13/06 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

2

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. 

In this case, Petitioner does not name any individual as the Respondent, he merely leaves

the space blank. 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).

II. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies

A petitioner who is in state custody and wishes to collaterally challenge his conviction by a

petition for writ of habeas corpus must exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 

The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial

opportunity to correct the state's alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501

U.S. 722, 731, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2554-55 (1991); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct.

1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v. Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9 Cir. 1988). th

A petitioner can satisfy the exhaustion requirement by providing the highest state court

with a full and fair opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. 

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512 (1971); Johnson v. Zenon, 88 F.3d 828,

829 (9 Cir. 1996). A federal court will find that the highest state court was given a full and fair th

opportunity to hear a claim if the petitioner has presented the highest state court with the claim's

factual and legal basis. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365, 115 S.Ct. 887, 888 (1995) (legal

Case 1:06-cv-00851-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 09/13/06 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

A copy of the California Supreme Court’s denial alone is insufficient to demonstrate exhaustion. The 1

proper documentation to provide would be a copy of the Petition filed in the California Supreme Court that

includes the claim now presented and a file stamp showing that it was indeed filed in that Court. 

3

basis); Kenney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 1719 (1992) (factual basis).

Additionally, the petitioner must have specifically told the state court that he was raising a federal

constitutional claim. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66, 115 S.Ct. at 888; Keating v. Hood, 133 F.3d

1240, 1241 (9 Cir.1998). For example, if a petitioner wishes to claim that the trial court violated th

his due process rights “he must say so, not only in federal court but in state court.” Duncan, 513

U.S. at 366, 115 S.Ct. at 888.

Because it is unclear what, if any, claims presented in the instant federal petition for writ

of habeas corpus were exhausted in the state’s highest court, Petitioner will be ordered to show

cause regarding exhaustion. If possible, Petitioner should present to the Court documentary

evidence that the claims were indeed presented to the California Supreme Court.1

III. Claim for Relief

In the amended petition, Petitioner merely states, and not under the claims for relief

section, “The fact that I was given 89 days credit by a judge at bellflower superior court and only

recieved [sic] 62 of thous days here at Golden State MCCF via Nork [sic] Kern State Prison.” 

(Amd. Pet., at 6.) It is unclear what Petitioner’s claim exactly is and whether it raises a

constitutional violation. Accordingly, Petitioner must amend the petition to clarify and provide

further factual support for his stated claim for relief. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner shall filed

an amended petition curing the deficiencies outlined herein; and

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the action be dismissed for failure

to comply with a court order. Local Rule 11-110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 12, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00851-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 3