John E. Neal v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, William Gastelum, Warden

944 F.2d 909, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 27139, 1991 WL 180085
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 16, 1991
Docket89-16640
StatusUnpublished

This text of 944 F.2d 909 (John E. Neal v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, William Gastelum, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John E. Neal v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, William Gastelum, Warden, 944 F.2d 909, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 27139, 1991 WL 180085 (9th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

944 F.2d 909

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
John E. NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the STATE OF ARIZONA, William Gastelum,
Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 89-16640.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 11, 1991.*
Decided Sept. 16, 1991.

Before CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and HUFF** District Judge.

MEMORANDUM***

Neal's habeas corpus petition failed to name as respondent the party having custody of him. His failure to name that party is a fatal defect. King v. California, 356 F.2d 950 (9th Cir.1966). The defect may be cured by amending the petition. Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 125 n. 1 (9th Cir.1968). The district court twice instructed Neal that he had to amend his petition to name his parole or probation officer, the person having custody over him, as a respondent. Neal failed to follow the court's directives. The district court accordingly did not err in dismissing Neal's petition and in denying his request for rehearing.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds the case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed.R.App. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

The Honorable Marilyn Huff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Willie James King v. State of California
356 F.2d 950 (Ninth Circuit, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
944 F.2d 909, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 27139, 1991 WL 180085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-e-neal-v-attorney-general-of-the-state-of-ari-ca9-1991.