Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01315/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01315-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tina Hornbeak
Respondent
Mianta McKnight
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIANTA McKNIGHT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

JOHN MONDAY, Executive )

Director, Board of Parole )

Hearings, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv-1315-SKO-HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT NO LATER THAN THIRTY

(30) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner who is confined in Chowchilla

and proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to

the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1) and Local

Rules 72-302 and 72-303. Pending before the Court is

Petitioner’s petition, which was filed on May 6, 2009, and

transferred to this Court on July 20, 2009. The petition concerns

the denial of Petitioner’s parole on September 10, 2007, by the

Board of Parole Hearings (Pet. 12.)

I. Screening the Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

1

Case 1:09-cv-01315-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 4
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

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

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

1990). 

The Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus

either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the

respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 Adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001). 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

II. Petitioner’s Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 

In this case, Petitioner named as Respondent John Monday,

Executive Director, Board of Parole Hearings. Petitioner is

incarcerated at the Valley State Prison for Women located in

Chowchilla, California. The warden at that facility is Tina

Hornbeak.

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. Habeas Rule 2(a); 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

2

Case 1:09-cv-01315-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 4
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

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 and thus can

produce 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. However, in a proceeding pursuant to § 2254

challenging a decision of the California Board of Parole

Hearings’ to deny parole to a petitioner who is a state prison

inmate, the proper respondent is the state officer with immediate

custody of the prisoner, and specifically, the warden at the

institution of confinement. Oluwa v. Evans, 2008 WL 5411204, *1

(N.D.Cal. Dec. 29, 2008). 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires

dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

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, In re

Morris, 363 F.3d 891, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2004). In the interest of

judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. 

Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled "Motion to Amend

the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may

3

Case 1:09-cv-01315-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 4
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

name the proper respondent in this action.

III. Order Granting Leave to File a Motion to Amend

the Petition

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 and name a proper respondent. Failure to

amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in a

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01315-SKO Document 8 Filed 05/25/10 Page 4 of 4