Jesus Villalba Ramirez v. People of the State of California

Filing 12

ORDER REQUIRING Petitioner to Amend Petition to Name Proper Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/2/15: Thirty Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
)
Respondent.
)
JESUS VILLALBA RAMIREZ,

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01788-JLT
ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO AMEND
PETITION TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
In this action, it appears Petitioner seeks to challenge his 2012 conviction for sexual

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

intercourse with a child under ten years of age. (Doc. 1 at 3) However, he has failed to name a proper
respondent. Thus, the Court will require Plaintiff to amend his complaint to do so.
A.

Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:
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.

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.
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer

2
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 as Respondent “the People of the State of California.” However,

14

“the People of the State of California” is not the warden or chief officer of the institution where

15

Petitioner is confined and, thus, does not have day-to-day control over Petitioner. Petitioner is

16

confined at the Sierra Conservation Center, Jamestown, California. The current acting director or

17

warden of that facility is Joel Martinez. 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
2

1

the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may name the proper

2

respondent in this action. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days to file a motion to amend the petition to name a proper

3

respondent.

4

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in an

5
6

Order of Dismissal or a Recommendation that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule

7

110.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 2, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3