Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01427/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
People of the State of California
Respondent
Michael Reams
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

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than 1

those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Civil

Rule 81(a)(2) provides that the rules are “applicable to proceedings for . . . habeas corpus . . . to the extent that the

practice in such proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has heretofore conformed to the

practice of civil actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P 81(a)(2). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL REAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, et al., )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-01427-OWW-TAG HC 

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO

AMEND THE PETITION AND NAME A

PROPER RESPONDENT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER

(Doc. 1)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 16, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno

Division. (Doc. 1).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that the Court make a preliminary 1

review of each Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it

plainly appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the

district court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases; see, also, Hendricks v. Vasquez,

908 F.2d 490 (9 Cir. 1990). th

///

DISCUSSION

Case 1:06-cv-01427-JMD Document 7 Filed 11/29/07 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

A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of

him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; OrtizSandoval 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 “dayto-day control over” the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992). However, the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. OrtizSandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. When 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 asserts that he is incarcerated at the Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, Blythe,

California. The individual in charge of that facility is John F. Salazar, Warden. The instant

petition does not name Mr. Salazar as Respondent but instead names “The People of the State of

California” as Respondent. (Doc. 1). The “People of the State of California” is not the warden

or individual in charge of the institution where Petitioner is confined, and thus is not the person

having day-to-day control over Petitioner.

Petitioner therefore must file an amended petition within thirty days naming as

Respondent the individual responsible for day-to-day control over Petitioner. 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). Petitioner’s failure to

name his custodian as a respondent deprives this Court of personal jurisdiction to consider

his petition. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner SHALL, within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Amend the

Petition to name the proper respondent. The amended petition should be clearly

and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,” contain the appropriate case number,

and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner is advised that the

Case 1:06-cv-01427-JMD Document 7 Filed 11/29/07 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

3

form petition must set forth all claims for relief, including the facts and arguments

in support of those claims. Petitioner should also note that every pleading to

which an amendment is permitted must be retyped or rewritten and filed so that it

is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. Local

Rule 15-220. 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for

state prisoners filing pursuant to § 2254. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01427-JMD Document 7 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3