(HC) Howell v. Black ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONNIE E. HOWELL, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00731-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITH LEAVE ) TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED PETITION 13 v. ) ) [THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE] 14 WARDEN, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on May 12, 2020 in the United States 18 District Court for the Northern District of California. (Doc. 1.) The Northern District transferred the 19 petition to this Court on May 26, 2020. (Doc. 4.) A preliminary screening of the petition reveals that 20 the petition fails to name the proper respondent. Therefore, the Court will DISMISS the petition with 21 leave to file an amended petition. 22 I. DISCUSSION 23 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 25 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it 26 plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 27 the district court. . .” Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). The Advisory 28 Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 1 either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an 2 answer to the petition has been filed. 3 B. Failure to Name a Proper Respondent 4 Petitioner fails to name a respondent. A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 5 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 6 Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 7 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person 8 having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden of the prison in which the petitioner is 9 incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United 10 States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer 11 in charge of state penal institutions is also appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. 12 Where a petitioner is on probation or parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer 13 and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency or state correctional agency. Id. 14 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for 15 lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 1326 16 (9th Cir. 1970); see also Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd Cir. 1976). 17 However, the Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to 18 name a proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 19 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc) 20 (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 21 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In any amended petition, Petitioner must name a proper respondent. 22 Petitioner will be granted an opportunity to file a First Amended Petition to cure this 23 deficiency. Petitioner is advised that he should entitle his pleading, “First Amended Petition,” and he 24 should reference the instant case number. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of 25 the action. 26 II. ORDER 27 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 28 1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 1 failure to name a proper respondent; and 2 2) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a First 3 Amended Petition. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: June 15, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00731

Filed Date: 6/15/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/19/2024