Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01170/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01170-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bradley Kyle Henson
Petitioner
Richard Kirkland
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY KYLE HENSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-CV-01170 AWI SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE

TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE

PETITION AND NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT

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. 

Petitioner is incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison located in Crescent City, California. The

warden at that facility is Richard Kirkland.

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

Case 1:06-cv-01170-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

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). 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).

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 may file a motion entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to

Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent in this action.

ORDER

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: October 17, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01170-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 2