Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00330/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00330-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\07cv0330 dismiss without prejudice.wpd, 367 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK ANTHONY BATES, Civil No. 07cv0330 H (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

KEN CLARK, Warden

Respondent.

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 MEET THE 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 April 27, 2007, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee

or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. For Petitioner’s convenience, a blank

motion to proceed in forma pauperis is attached to this Order.

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

Case 3:07-cv-00330-H-BLM Document 5 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 2
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\07cv0330 dismiss without prejudice.wpd, 367 -2-

respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28

U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “The ‘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). 

Here, Petitioner incorrectly named “Ken Clark” as Respondent. In order for this

Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden currently

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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 6, 2007

__________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-00330-H-BLM Document 5 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2