Jones v. The People of the State of California
Filing
5
ORDER GRANTING Petitioner Leave to File Motion to Amend to Name a Proper Respondent signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/12/2018. 30-day deadline. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALVIN BERNARD JONES,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Case No. 1:18-cv-00493-JLT-HC
Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION TO AMEND TO NAME
A PROPER RESPONDENT
v.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
[THIRTY DAY DEADLINE]
Respondent.
On April 11, 2018, Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. He named
18 The People of the State of California as Respondent in this matter. However, the People are not
19 a proper respondent. Petitioner will be granted leave to amend the respondent in order to avoid
20 dismissal of the action.
DISCUSSION
21
22
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary
23 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it
24 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the
25 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.
26 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it
27 appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson,
28 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).
1
1
In this case, Petitioner names The People of the State of California as Respondent. A
2 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 §
4 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California
5 Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an
6 incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because
7 the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d
8 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of
9 state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where
10 a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and
11 the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id.
12
Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition
13 for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326,
14 1326 (9th Cir. 1970); see also Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd
15 Cir. 1976). However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by
16 amending the petition to name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West
17 v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d
18 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent);
19 Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In the interests of judicial
20 economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion
21 entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" wherein Petitioner may
22 name the proper respondent in this action.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
ORDER
1
2
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner thirty days from the date of service of this
3 order in which to file a motion to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent.
4 Failure to amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that
5 the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 12, 2018
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?