(HC) Marroquin v. People of the State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLAS ANDRES MARROQUIN, No. 1:21-cv-01735-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO AMEND TO NAME A 13 v. PROPER RESPONDENT 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF THIRTY DAY DEADLINE CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On December 7, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner names the “People of the State of California” as the Respondent 19 in this matter. However, “the People of the State of California” is not a proper respondent. 20 Petitioner will be granted leave to amend the name of the respondent in order to avoid dismissal 21 of the action. 22 DISCUSSION 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary 24 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 25 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 26 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990). 27 A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears 28 1 that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 2 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 3 In this case, Petitioner names the “People of the State of California” as Respondent. A 4 petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the officer having custody of him as the 5 respondent to the petition. Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. 6 Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 7 (9th Cir. 1994). Normally, the person having custody of an incarcerated petitioner is the warden 8 of the prison in which the petitioner is incarcerated because the warden has "day-to-day control 9 over" the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); see also 10 Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. However, the chief officer in charge of penal institutions is also 11 appropriate. Ortiz, 81 F.3d at 894; Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Where a petitioner is on probation or 12 parole, the proper respondent is his probation or parole officer and the official in charge of the 13 parole or probation agency or correctional agency. Id. 14 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition 15 for lack of jurisdiction. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360; Olson v. California Adult Auth., 423 F.2d 1326, 16 1326 (9th Cir. 1970); see also Billiteri v. United States Bd. Of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2nd 17 Cir. 1976). The Court will afford Petitioner an opportunity to cure this defect by amending the 18 petition to name the proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. See West v. Louisiana, 19 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 20 1975) (en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name proper respondent); Ashley v. 21 State of Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In the interests of judicial economy, 22 Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled 23 "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" in which Petitioner identifies the 24 name of the proper respondent he seeks to substitute in this action. 25 ORDER 26 Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days (30) from the date of service of this 27 Order in which to file a motion to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent. 28 Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that the petition be 1 | dismissed without further notice. 2 >| Dated: _ January 31, 2022 lew fared fackt 4 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ; UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28