Kendall v. The People of the State of California

Filing 3

ORDER Requiring Petitioner to File Motion to Name Proper Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/12/13. 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEROY E. KENDALL, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-00209-JLT ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER FILE MOTION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT THIRTY DAY DEADLINE Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 8, 2013. 20 (Doc. 1). 21 22 DISCUSSION A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer 23 having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 24 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme 25 Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated 26 petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has 27 "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 28 1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the 1 1 chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 2 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or 3 parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. 4 Id. 5 Here, Petitioner has named as Respondent “the People of the State of California.” However, 6 “the People of the State of California” is not the warden or chief officer of the institution where 7 Petitioner is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is 8 presently confined at the California Rehabilitation Center, Norco, California. The current director or 9 warden of that facility is the person Petitioner should name as Respondent. 10 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for 11 lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 12 (9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976). 13 However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the 14 petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 15 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975) 16 (en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of 17 Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In any amended petition, Petitioner must name a 18 proper respondent. 19 In the interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, 20 Petitioner can satisfy this deficiency in his petition by filing a motion entitled "Motion to Amend 21 the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper 22 respondent in this action. 23 ORDER 24 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to SUBMIT 26 a Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent. 27 28 2 1 Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an Order of 2 Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110 and for lack 3 of habeas jurisdiction. 4 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 12, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 9j7khijed 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?