Crawford v. Spearman
Filing
7
ORDER Requiring Petitioner To Amend Petition To Name Proper Respondent, Thirty-Day Deadline, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/14/2015. 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.( Motions filed by 5/20/2015)(Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MELVIN JOEL CRAWFORD,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
v.
ON HABEAS CORPUS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:15-cv-00544-JLT
ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO AMEND
PETITION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
16
17
18
19
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The instant petition was filed on April 9, 2015. (Doc. 1).
DISCUSSION
20
A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.
21
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
22
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.
23
24
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of
25
habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss,
26
or after an answer to the petition has been filed. A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed
27
without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such
28
leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
1
1
B. Failure to Name A Proper Respondent.
2
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer
3
having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254
4
Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme
5
Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated
6
petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has
7
"day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.
8
1992); see also, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, the
9
chief officer in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21
10
F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or
11
parole officer and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency.
12
Id.
13
Here, Petitioner has named the Respondent as “On Habeas Corpus.” However, “On Habeas
14
Corpus” is not the warden or chief officer of the institution where Petitioner is confined and, thus,
15
does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is presently confined at the Salinas Valley
16
State Prison, Soledad, California. The current director or warden of that facility is William Muniz.
17
This is the person Petitioner should name as Respondent.
18
Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for
19
lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326
20
(9th Cir. 1970); see also, Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976).
21
However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the
22
petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana,
23
478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir.1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1975)
24
(en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of
25
Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same).
26
In the interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead,
27
Petitioner can satisfy this deficiency in his petition by filing a motion entitled "Motion to Amend
28
the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper
2
1
respondent in this action.
2
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
3
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.
4
5
6
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.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 14, 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?