Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02784/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02784-0/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

18cv2784-WQH (KSC)

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

TERRY LEWIS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2784-WQH (KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure 

to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a respondent, and failure to sign the 

petition and complete the petition form.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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 to paying the filing fee or submitting a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

FAILURE TO SIGN PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he petition 

must be printed, typewritten or legibly handwritten; and be signed under penalty of perjury 

Case 3:18-cv-02784-WQH-KSC Document 2 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2784-WQH (KSC)

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

by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2242.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). In this case, Petitioner has 

failed to sign the Petition. In addition, he has failed to completely fill out the petition form. 

The Court therefore DISMISSES the action without prejudice. Petitioner may file a “First 

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which is signed by Petitioner and filled out 

completely.

FAILURE TO NAME A 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). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in 

which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. 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).

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.

Case 3:18-cv-02784-WQH-KSC Document 2 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2784-WQH (KSC)

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

In this case, Petitioner has failed to name a 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 he is presently confined or the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 

379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. To have 

this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no later than February 11, 2019, a copy of 

this Order with the $5.00 fee, or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and file 

a First Amended Petition which cures the defects identified in this Order. The Clerk of 

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

a blank Southern District of California amended petition form to Petitioner along with a 

copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02784-WQH-KSC Document 2 Filed 12/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3