(HC) Dehart v. Eastern District Federal Court

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00617
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JEREMY COLE DEHART, Case No. 1:24-cv-00617-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO AMEND TO NAME A 13 v. PROPER RESPONDENT

14 EASTERN DISTRICT FEDERAL COURT, 30-DAY DEADLINE

15 Respondent. (Doc. 1) 16 17 18 Petitioner Jeremy Cole Dehart (“Petitioner”) is a pro se litigant proceeding in forma pauperis 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). A preliminary 20 screening of the petition reveals it fails to name a proper respondent. Petitioner will be granted leave 21 to name a proper respondent in order to avoid a recommendation to dismiss this action. 22 Background 23 Petitioner challenges his 2023 conviction in the Fresno Superior Court for first degree murder. 24 (Doc. 1 at 1). Petitioner appears to allege that there was insufficient evidence to establish 25 premedication and deliberation; he received ineffective assistance of counsel; the admission of certain 26 evidence violated his right to due process; and judicial bias. (Id. at 5-10). Petitioner raised similar 27 claims on direct appeal. See People v. Dehart, No. F082159, 2023 WL 2231854 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28 27, 2023), review denied (May 3, 2023). 1 Preliminary Screening 2 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 requires the Court to conduct a preliminary review of 3 each petition for writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus petitions by pro se petitioners are to be 4 liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, the Court must dismiss 5 a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition…that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Habeas 6 Rule 4; see Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rule 4). A petition for 7 writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable 8 claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave to be granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th 9 Cir. 1971). 10 A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the officer having custody of him as the 11 respondent to the petition. Habeas Rule 2(a); Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 12 1996). “Typically, this person is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” 13 Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. Alternatively, the Habeas Rules indicate “the chief officer in charge 14 of state penal institutions” may also be considered a proper respondent. Id. (citing Habeas Rule 2(a) 15 advisory committee notes). “Failure to name the proper respondent strips the district court of personal 16 jurisdiction.” Sky v. Stolc, 497 F. App’x 696, 696 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 17 894). 18 Discussion 19 Here, Petitioner lists “Eastern District Federal Court” as the respondent. (Doc. 1 at 1). 20 However, Petitioner is incarcerated in a state facility pursuant to a state judgment. (See id.). Thus, 21 22 Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. This failure deprives the Court of personal 23 jurisdiction and warrants dismissal. See Sky, 497 F. App’x at 696. 24 However, the Court will afford Petitioner an opportunity to cure this defect by amending the 25 petition to name the proper respondent, such as the warden of his facility. In the interests of judicial 26 economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled 27 “Motion to Amend Petition to Name Proper Respondent” in which Petitioner identifies the name of 28 the proper respondent he seeks to substitute in this action. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to timely ! file such a motion will result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed. Conclusion and Order ; Accordingly, it is ORDERED: ‘ Petitioner is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this Order in which to file a ° Motion to Amend Petition to Name Proper Respondent. Failure to timely comply with this Order wil ° result in a recommendation that the petition be dismissed for the reasons explained above. IT IS SO ORDERED.

|| Dated: _ July 22, 2025 | hr UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28