Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01901/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01901-0/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

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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARDO ESTRADA, Civil No. 10-1901 BTM (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER RE: FAILURE TO SATISFY

FILING FEE REQUIREMENT AND

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER

RESPONDENT

v.

K. ALLISON, Warden, et al.,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the outcome of a prison disciplinary hearing.

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

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.

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01901-BTM-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/01/10 Page 1 of 3
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

-2-

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).

A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of]

habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in custody. The

actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.” Ashley v.

Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement exists because a writ of

habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the person who will produce “the

body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden of a California prison and the Director

of Corrections for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d

at 895.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “ K. Allison,” as Respondent. 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 Director of the

California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992) (per curiam). According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

website, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Facilities_Locator/COR.html, the Acting Warden of California

State Prison, Corcoran is Raul Lopez .

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner must, no later than November 29, 2010: (1) pay the filing fee OR provide

adequate proof of his inability to pay AND (2) file a First Amended Petition which cures the

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01901-BTM-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/01/10 Page 2 of 3
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

-3-

pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this

case. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL TO PETITIONER A BLANK

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FORM AND A BLANK FIRST

AMENDED PETITION FORM. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01901-BTM-BLM Document 2 Filed 10/01/10 Page 3 of 3