Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00939/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00939-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORZELL THOMAS, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-0939 LKK DAD P

vs.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Petitioner is informed that an application to proceed in forma pauperis in a federal

habeas proceeding must make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and must include a

certificate from a prison official showing the amount of money the prisoner has in his prison trust

account. See Rule 3(a), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts. Petitioner’s in

forma pauperis application does not make the requiring showing and does not include a prison

official’s certificate of funds. The application will be denied.

Petitioner is also informed that “[a] petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name

the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.” Stanley v.

California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), Fed. R. Governing

Case 2:06-cv-00939-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 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

2

§ 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Courts). A petition that does not name the proper respondent must

be dismissed. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. In this case, petitioner has named the Attorney

General of the State of California as respondent. The appropriate respondent is the warden of the

institution in which petitioner is confined.

Petitioner is confined in the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San

Diego, which is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California. In his habeas petition, petitioner states that he is attacking a

judgment of conviction entered on August 26, 1975, but he does not identify the court that

entered the 1975 judgment. On May 24, 2006, petitioner filed a document that includes an

abstract of judgment showing that petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in San

Diego County Superior Court on August 26, 1975. However, the court is unable to determine

whether petitioner is in fact challenging the 1975 judgment. Attached to petitioner’s form

petition is a handwritten document with a caption identifying respondents as “Los Angeles

County Board of Supervisors, Judges, Referees, Commissioners of the Los Angeles County

Superior Court, Department #100.” Petitioner’s May 24, 2006 filing includes an abstract of

judgment showing that petitioner was convicted of drug offenses in Los Angeles County

Superior Court on June 14, 2002.

Petitioner is not confined in the Eastern District of California and is not

challenging a judgment entered in this district. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the

petition. If petitioner seeks to challenge his 1975 San Diego County conviction, he should file a

petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. If petitioner

seeks to challenge his 2002 Los Angeles County conviction, he should file a petition in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

/////

/////

///// 

Case 2:06-cv-00939-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis filed May 1,

2006, is denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order and findings and

recommendations, together with a copy of the habeas petition filed May 1, 2006, upon the

Attorney General of the State of California; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus

be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within

the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 30, 2006.

DAD:13

thom0939.156

Case 2:06-cv-00939-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 3