Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01122/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01122-0/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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1122 d ism iss.w pd, 6910 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WAYNE TAYLOR, Civil No. 10-1122 LAB (PCL)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.,

Respondents.

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 NAME 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.

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

Case 3:10-cv-01122-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 06/09/10 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 :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \10cv1122 d ism iss.w pd, 6910 -2-

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 “San Diego County and Jerry E. Brown,” as

Respondents. 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). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reason, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with

leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than August 10, 2010:

submit a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order.

THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK FIRST

AMENDED PETITION FORM TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 9, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01122-LAB-PCL Document 3 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2