Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01107/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01107-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

FILED 

SEP 0 5 2018 

CLERK US DIS tRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRIC1 F CALIFORNIA 

BY ,L,./' DEPUTY 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 MARTIN MANZO ORTEGA, 

12 Petitioner, 

13 v. 

14 JUDGE TIMOTHYB. WALSH, 

15 

16 

Respondent. 

Case No.: l 7cvl 107 BEN (JLB) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

17 On May 30, 2017, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding prose, filed a Petition for 

18 Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (ECF No. 1). The Court dismissed the action on 

19 June 20, 2017, because Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and had 

20 failed to name a proper respondent or use the proper form. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner was 

21 given until August 14, 2017 to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of 

22 his inability to pay the fee and submit a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading 

23 deficiencies outlined in the Court's Order. (Jd.) 

24 On July 11, 2017, the Court granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status after he 

25 submitted a trust account statement that indicated he was unable to pay the $5.00 filing 

26 fee. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner was reminded that he was still required to file a First 

27 Amended Petition by August 14, 2017 in order to proceed with the case. (Id.) On 

28 August 6, 2018, Petitioner constructively filed a First Amended Petition. (ECF No. 8.) 

17cvl 107 BEN (JLB) 

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 9 Filed 09/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT 

2 Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has again failed to name a proper 

3 respondent. On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having 

4 custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81F.3d891, 894 (9th Cir. 

5 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction 

6 when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. 

7 The warden is the typical respondent. However, "the rules following section 2254 

8 do not specify the warden." Id. "[T]he 'state officer having custody' may be 'either the 

9 warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated ... or the chief officer in 

10 charge of state penal institutions."' Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll.§ 2254 

11 advisory committee's note). If"a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is 

12 challenging, '[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of 

13 the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison)."' Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. 

14 foll.§ 2254 advisory committee's note). 

15 A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds "that a petitioner may not seek [a 

16 writ of] habeas corpus against the State under ... [whose] authority ... the petitioner is 

17 in custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 

18 respondent." Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement 

19 exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the 

20 person who will produce "the body" if directed to do so by the Court. "Both the warden 

21 of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to 

22 produce the prisoner." Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895. 

23 Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named "Judge Timothy Walsh" as Respondent. In 

24 order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the 

25 warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently 

26 confined or the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. 

27 United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

28 I I I 

2 

17cvl 107 BEN (JLB) 

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 9 Filed 09/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION 

2 In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the 

3 petition "shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds ... 

4 specified [in the petition]." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll.§ 2254; see also Boehme v. 

5 Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court's dismissal of federal habeas 

6 proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual 

7 allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 

8 2( c ). Although Petitioner does not fail to state factual allegations in the Petition, he does 

9 fail to state any grounds for relief in the Petition. 

10 While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and 

11 understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting 

12 out grounds for relief. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). The 

13 Court finds that the Petition contains conclusory allegations without any grounds for 

14 relief. A federal court may not entertain a petition that contains allegations which are 

15 conclusory. 

16 This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to 

17 identify and make sense of the Petition and its attachments. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), 

18 Petitioner must point to a "real possibility of constitutional error." Cf Blackledge v. 

19 Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be 

20 stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the 

21 face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus review is warranted. See Hendricks v. 

22 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491-92 (9th Cir. 1990); Adams v. Armantrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 

23 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the 

24 respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Hendricks, 908 F.3d at 491-92. 

25 Here, the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being 

26 able to assert appropriate objections and defenses. 

27 Due to Petitioner's unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without 

28 prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file a new petition, he is advised to clearly and 

3 

17cvl 107 BEN (JLB) 

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 9 Filed 09/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1 succinctly state all grounds for relief using the Second Amended Petition form sent to 

2 Petitioner with this order. 

3 CONCLUSION 

4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave 

5 to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than October 26, 2018, 

6 file a Second Amended Petition that cures the O!eacYJng deficiencies outlined in this 

7 Order. 

8 DATED:s.£..L,£,..~~~'-6J.~ 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

• 

4 

17cvll07 BEN (JLB) 

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 9 Filed 09/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4