(HC)Gonzalez Chavez v. Becerra ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIAZAR GONZALEZ CHAVEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01032-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 13 v. PETITION AND NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 14 MOISES BECERRA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for 20 the Northern District of California on June 26, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) On August 28, 2024, the 21 United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order transferring 22 the petition to this Court in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. Garland, 109 23 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024). (ECF No. 35.) 24 “[L]ongstanding practice confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical 25 confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of 26 the facility where the prisoner is being held . . . .” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). 27 In Doe, the Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including those 1 | filed by immigrant detainees.” Doe, 109 F.4th at 1199. A petitioner’s failure to name a proper 2 | respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Stanley v. 3 | California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, a court should grant a 4 | petitioner “leave to amend his petition to correct this technical deficiency.” Dubrin v. California, 5 | 720 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013). 6 Here, Petitioner is detained at the Golden State Annex (“GSA”). (ECF No. | at 4.') The 7 | Ninth Circuit has held that “[u]nder Padilla, [Petitioner] must name his immediate custodian, the 8 | Facility Administrator of GSA, as the respondent to his petition.” Doe, 109 F.4th at 1197. 9 | Petitioner has not named the Facility Administrator of GSA as a respondent to his petition. The 10 | Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to name a 11 | proper respondent. In the interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended 12 | petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled “Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a 13 | Proper Respondent” wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent in this action. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED FOURTEEN 15 | (14) days from the date of service of this order in which to file a motion to amend the petition to 16 | name a proper respondent. Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order and amend 17 | the petition to state a proper respondent will result a recommendation that the petition be 18 | dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21| Dated: _ September 16, 2024 [see hy — 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 |! Page numbers refer to the ECF pagination stamped at the top of the page.