Jerry F. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Jerry F. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a petitioner for 21 habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the 22 respondent to the petition.”
743 citation events (697 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: (PC) Hill v. Engelbrektson (caed, 2025-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (PC) Hill v. Engelbrektson
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a petitioner for habeas corpus relief must 8 name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Belander v. Pedro
W.D. Wash. · 2024 · signal: accord · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a petitioner for 21 habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the 22 respondent to the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Drexler v. Spahn
10th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
failure to name the petitioner's custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (HC) Reneaux v. Kibler
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a petitioner for habeas corpus relief must 27 name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (HC) Doughton v. State of California
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody 28 of him or her as the respondent to the petition.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) (HC) Jarvis v. Pollard
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marcus A. Harris v. The State of Idaho, et al.
D. Idaho · 2026 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nikolay Koreyev v. R. Jones, et al.
D. Ariz. · 2026 · confidence medium
Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Benji Macaulay v. Warden, et al.
C.D. Cal. · 2026 · confidence medium
See Ortiz-Sandoval v. 3 || Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 , 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended); Stanley v. Cal. 4 ||Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (as amended).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Douglas Samuel Jessop v. People of the State of California
C.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme 19 Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 B. □ Abstention 21 Federal courts “ordinarily should entertain and resolve on the merits an 22 || action within the scope of a jurisdictional grant, and should not ‘refus[e] to decide 23 || a case in deference to the States.” Sprint Comme’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 , 24 || 72 (2013) (quoting New Orleans Pub.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Corey Slaughter v. Tammy L. Campbell, Warden, California State Prison - Corcoran
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 3 The record reflects that petitioner was incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison when 4 he initiated this proceeding; in May of 2024, petitioner was transferred to California State 5 Prison - Corcoran; and in May of 2025, petitioner was transferred to the California Men’s 6 Colony - San Luis Obispo.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lonnie Johnson Harrison II v. The People of the United States, et al. (2×) also: Cited "see"
C.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
“This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Stanley v. California Supreme Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Delbert Smith v. State of California (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 4 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 5 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Darnell Leshawn White v. People of the State of California (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her 21 as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th 22 Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Khuong Quoc Vo v. People of the State
C.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 22 1996) (as amended); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 23 1994) (as amended).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) James v. Silva
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to 27 the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jasman Dawone Holman v. The People of State of California (2×) also: Cited "see"
C.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
“This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Stanley v. California Supreme Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Trayvon Mcfadden v. Unknown
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Typically, 1 this person is “the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. (citing 2 Stanley v. California Supreme Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacob Godoy v. Honorable Judge of CA Federal Court
C.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
(Id. at 1-2.)2 “A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 Rule 2(a).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Does v. Ford
D. Nev. · 2025 · confidence medium
Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 21 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roderick Washington v. Richard Brumfield (2×) also: Cited "see"
C.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
“This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Stanley v. California Supreme Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Murphy v. Smith
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the 27 respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Collins v. On Habeas Corpus (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 8 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 9 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wheeler v. Petty
D. Idaho · 2025 · confidence medium
This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) (HC)Gonzalez Chavez v. Becerra
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Stanley v. 12 California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) (DP) Holt v. Brown
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 11 Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (the warden of the penitentiary where 12 a prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the petition).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Rollarson v. On Habeas Corpus (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 12 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 13 Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 14 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sarr v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director
W.D. Wash. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 12 However, a court should grant a petitioner “leave to amend his petition to correct this technical 13 deficiency.” Dubrin v. California, 720 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013); Le v. Field Off.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Medina v. On Habeas Corpus
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 16 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 17 Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th 18 Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Manina v. State of Washington
E.D. Wash. · 2024 · confidence medium
The Court must assume Petitioner has 25 chosen to abandon this litigation. 26 Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Order to Show Cause, IT IS 27 ORDERED this habeas action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of 28 jurisdiction over the Respondent, see Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994), and for failure to exhaust state court remedies, see O Sullivan v. Boerkel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1.
cited Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Le v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stanley v. 3 | California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Herrera v. On Habeas Corpus
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Typically, this 8 person is “the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Stanley v. California 9 Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (citing Brittingham v. United States, 982 10 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) (HC)Gonzalez Chavez v. Becerra
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stanley v. 3 | California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. Andrewjeski
E.D. Wash. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 441–42 (2004); 5 Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 6 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) (HC)West v. Attorney General of the State of California
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Rule 2(a) 27 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); 28 Stanley v. California Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC)Patton v. Wasco State Prison (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Rule 2 (a) of the Rules 26 Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. 27 California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Nguyen v. Arias
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer 20 having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme 21 Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ). 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (DP) Slaughter v. Stokes
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 7 Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (the warden of the penitentiary where 8 a prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the petition).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (DP) Clark v. Cueva
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 6 Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2003) (the warden of the penitentiary where 7 a prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the petition).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Solomon v. Covello (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition, ECF No. 1, 19 which pleading is defective as lacking designation of any state officer defendant as having 20 custody of Petitioner. 21 It is well established that a “ petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer 22 having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme 23 Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 24 2254 Cases.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Flores v. The People (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. 7 Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 8 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Morrison v. Gamboa (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her 20 as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th 21 Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Valerie Wildman v. Warden
C.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) 9 (as amended); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) 10 (as amended).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Grayson v. Unknown (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for 4 || habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to 5 | the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994); see also 6 || Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC)Garza v. Phillips (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Rule 2 (a) of the Rules Governing § 5 2254 Cases; Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California 6 Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Leonard v. Cueda (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
“A 20 petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the 21 respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 22 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Karlis Ruben Augustus Howard v. Avenal State Prison
C.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) 15 (as amended); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) 16 (as amended).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (HC) Lemus v. Pratt (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or 20 her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th 21 Cir. 1994); see also Rule 2(a), Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Usugan v. Moudy
D. Alaska · 2023 · confidence medium
HCR 1.1(c)(1). 17 Belgarde v. State of Mont., 123 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A petitioner for habeas relief under Section 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him or her as a respondent. ‘Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.’” (citations omitted) (quoting Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chaka D. Gilbert v. Coalinga State Hospital
C.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 25 F.3d 891 , 894 (9th Cir. 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 26 2 Case No. 5:12-cv-01446-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:17-cv-00855-DSF-JEM; Case No. 27 5:17-cv-01105-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:18-cv-01055-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:19-cv-00448- 28 DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:19-cv-00502-DSF-JEM; Case No. 5:19-cv-00756-DSF-JEM; |v. ORDER 2 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) the Petition is 3 || dismissed without prejudice; and (2) a certificate of appealability is denied. 4 5 | DATED: 9/15/2023 7 HON.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jerry F. STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees
92-16497.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 18, 1994.
21 F.3d 359
J. Frank McCabe, Goorjian & McCabe, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner-appellant., William G. Prahl, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for respondents-appellees.
Tang, O'Scannlain, Nelson.
Cited by 366 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

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.

I

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. § 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 Peseetta 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[*360] 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.

II

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. 28 foil. U.S.C. § 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 jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989).

Neither of Stanley’s two petitions named his custodian as a respondent and therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction. For this reason, we vacate its dismissal and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction unless Stanley can timely amend his petition to name the correct party as respondent and can demonstrate that his claims regarding the ineffectiveness and misconduct of his state appellate counsel are ripe for federal habeas review. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632 (9th Cir.1983). Regarding the latter point, we have grave doubt that petitioner can demonstrate ripeness so long as the direct appeal remains pending in the California Supreme Court. Id. We also note that, even if that court were to affirm Stanley’s appeal, he still will be free to allege ineffectiveness of appellate counsel in a state petition for habeas corpus. See Tacho v. Martinez, 862 F.2d 1376, 1381 (9th Cir.1988); see, e.g., People v. Harris, 19 Cal.App.4th 709, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 586 (1993).

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

1

. We suggest that the district court consider appointing J. Frank McCabe to represent Stanley upon remand.