Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02195/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02195-0/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

18cv2195 H (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERIBERTO RIVAS,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2195 H (WVG)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254;.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in 

forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the 

$5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the 

case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to 

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than November 30, 2018, a copy of this 

Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. The Clerk 

of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application 

to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

//

Case 3:18-cv-02195-H-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2195 H (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

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

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

custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 

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

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

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

do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the 

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

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

advisory committee’s note). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is 

challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of 

the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. 

foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).

Additionally, Kamala Harris, the former Attorney General of the State of 

California, is not a proper respondent in this action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 

provides that the state officer having custody of the petitioner shall be named as 

respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. However, “if the applicant is not presently 

in custody pursuant to a state judgment against which he seeks relief but may be subject 

to such custody in the future,” then “the officer having present custody of the applicant as 

well as the attorney general of the state in which the judgment which he seeks to attack 

was entered shall each be named as respondents.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as a respondent 

in this action. 

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

name the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is 

presently confined or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02195-H-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2195 H (WVG)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per 

curiam). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failed to name a 

proper respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later November 30, 

2018, (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) 

file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. A 

blank In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank First Amended Petition are included 

with this Order for Petitioner’s convenience.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2018

 Marilyn L. Huff

 United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:18-cv-02195-H-WVG Document 2 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3