Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01750/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01750-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Marcel Beard
Petitioner
Randy Grounds
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MARCEL BEARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv—01750-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 proceeding in forma pauperis

and 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 302 and

303. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, which

was filed in this Court on October 5, 2009.

I. Screening the Petition

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

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

1

Case 1:09-cv-01750-BAM Document 10 Filed 07/13/10 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

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 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 the people of the state of

California and Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr., as

Respondents. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Wasco State

Prison located in Wasco, California. The warden at that facility

is Randy Grounds.

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. 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

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

2

Case 1:09-cv-01750-BAM Document 10 Filed 07/13/10 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

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. 

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

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

///

///

3

Case 1:09-cv-01750-BAM Document 10 Filed 07/13/10 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

recommendation that the petition be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:09-cv-01750-BAM Document 10 Filed 07/13/10 Page 4 of 4