Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01013/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ermilio Rodriguez Morales
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which he filed on July 6, 2015. (Doc. 1). 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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 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 (9th Cir. 1971). 

ERMILIO RODRIGUEZ MORALES,

 Petitioner,

v.

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01013-JLT

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO AMEND

PETITION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:15-cv-01013-JLT Document 4 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

B. Failure to Name A Proper 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. Cal.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). 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. 

Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent “On Habeas Corpus.” However, “On Habeas 

Corpus” is not the warden or chief officer of the institution where Petitioner is confined and, thus, does 

not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is presently confined at the High Desert State 

Prison, Susanville, California. The current director or warden of that facility is Suzanne M. Peery. 

This is the person Petitioner should name as Respondent.

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, 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 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). 

In the interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, 

Petitioner can satisfy this deficiency in his petition by filing a motion entitled "Motion to Amend 

the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent 

in this action.

Case 1:15-cv-01013-JLT Document 4 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT a 

Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 

Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01013-JLT Document 4 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 3