Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02633/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02633-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD ANTHONY FOGGY, Civil No. 12cv2633-LAB (BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has

filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a

request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not provided

the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. A request to

proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the warden

or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account

in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to

provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. Petitioner indicates that the in forma

pauperis form he has used requires a certified statement showing transactions for the six-month

period immediately preceding the filing of the Petition, and that he is unable to comply because

he will not have been incarcerated in prison for six months. (ECF No. 2 at 3.) However,

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv2633-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 111412 -1- 12cv2633

Case 3:12-cv-02633-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/14/12 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

Petitioner must nevertheless include a prison certificate showing his current assets. (The proper

Southern District in forma pauperis form, which includes the required Prison Certificate, is

attached for Petitioner’s convenience.)

In addition, 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). 

“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).

Petitioner here has named “People of the State of California” as Respondent. 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.

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 and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v.

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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv2633-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 111412 -2- 12cv2633

Case 3:12-cv-02633-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/14/12 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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner must, no later

than January 7, 2013, provide the Court with: (1) a copy of this Order together with the $5.00

filing fee; or (2) a copy of this Order together with adequate proof that Petitioner cannot pay the

$5.00 filing fee and file a First Amended Petition which names a proper Respondent. The Clerk

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

application, which includes the required prison certificate, along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\12cv2633-Deny&Dismiss.wpd, 111412 -3- 12cv2633

Case 3:12-cv-02633-LAB-BGS Document 3 Filed 11/14/12 Page 3 of 3