Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01683/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01683-0/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

-1- 06cv1683

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BOYD HARPER, Civil No. 06-1683 JM (PCL)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner,

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 SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to

proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Additionally, 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.

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01683-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 09/05/06 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

27

28

-2- 06cv1683

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).

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 “Ken Clark,” as Respondent. 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 reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave

to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than November 6, 2006,

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01683-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 09/05/06 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

27

28 1

 For Petitioner’s convenience, a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis is attached to this

Order.

-3- 06cv1683

pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND file a First

Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 5, 2006

Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01683-JM-PCL Document 6 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 3