Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01751/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01751-0/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 

18cv1751 JAH (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 

JUSTIN ANTONIO ANDERSON, 

Petitioner,

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent.

 Case No.: 18cv1751 JAH (KSC) 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and has paid the requisite filing fee. 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 

Case 3:18-cv-01751-JAH-MSB Document 2 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

18cv1751 JAH (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

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. 

 Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “California Department of Corrections” and 

“State of California” 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 Secretary of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 

1992) (per curiam). 

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to 

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner 

must file a First Amended Petition no later than October 1, 2018 in conformance with 

this Order. (A blank petition form is included with this Order for Petitioner’s 

convenience.) 

Dated: August 3, 2018 

 John A. Houston 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01751-JAH-MSB Document 2 Filed 08/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2