Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 92-16497
| Decision Date | 18 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-16497,92-16497 |
| Citation | 21 F.3d 359 |
| Parties | Jerry F. STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al., Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. Frank McCabe, Goorjian & McCabe, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner-appellant.
William G. Prahl, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Before: TANG, O'SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Stanley was convicted in California state court in 1984 for the murder of his wife and was sentenced to death. He has appealed the conviction to the California Supreme Court, where his appeal is still pending.
On January 11, 1990, Stanley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that his appointed counsel was representing him in the California appeal under a conflict of interest and had attempted to extort money from him. Stanley's petition later was transferred by order under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(d) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
In his habeas petition, Stanley named the Supreme Court of California, the California Public Defender, and attorney Mike Pescetta as the respondents, none of whom were served. On February 6, 1992, a federal magistrate judge ordered the Federal Public Defender to report on the status of the petition and on whether Stanley had secured representation.
On February 18, 1992, Stanley filed a second petition for habeas corpus, which the magistrate judge deemed to be an amendment of the first petition. There Stanley alleged that a new attorney, Frank Hagie, had been appointed to represent him in his state appeal. According to Stanley, Hagie had stolen property from him relating to his state appeal and had stated that he will not work on his appeal effectively. Stanley also alleged that his family had threatened the lives of Hagie and Hagie's family in response to these actions. The second petition named only the California Supreme Court and Frank Hagie as respondents. Again, neither respondent was served.
On February 24, 1992, the Federal Public Defender submitted its status report which stated that Stanley's direct appeal of his conviction was still pending before the California Supreme Court and as of that time, no counsel had been appointed to assist him with his federal petition. The magistrate judge thereupon recommended that the district court dismiss Stanley's petition. On June 2, 1992, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations and dismissed the petition on abstention grounds citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).
On August 21, 1992, the district court issued a certificate of probable cause and a pro se notice of appeal was filed timely. On December 8, 1992, this court appointed J. Frank McCabe 1 to represent Stanley in this appeal which is listed on this court's death penalty case docket.
A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. 28 foll. U.S.C. Sec. 2254 Rule 2(a). This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992). Failure to name the petitioner's custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrillo v. Biter
...the state officer who has custody. A failure to name the proper respondent destroys personal jurisdiction. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). The warden of the penitentiary where a prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the pe......
-
Cottrell v. Trimble, 1:04-cv-05943-SMS-HC
...Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas Rules). See, Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). Reference to the Adult Facilities Locator on the official website of the California Department of Corrections ......
-
Rasmussen v. Garrett, Case No. 3:20-cv-00865-IM
...federal courts of personal jurisdiction." Belgarde v. Montana , 123 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Stanley v. Cal. S. Ct. , 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) ). The Supreme Court has observed that the language of the federal habeas statute generally contemplates "only one proper res......
-
Senteno v. State Of Cal., Case No. 08cv0694-JLS(JMA).
...1. The Answer is filed on behalf of the SATF warden where Senteno is incarcerated, K. Clark, his custodian. Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994); Rule 2(a) foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 2. The Answer (Dkt. No. 9) provides the Governor's decision as a scanned exhibit. (Dk......