Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02516/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02516-0/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:\COMMON\Chmb_Sammartino\Colin Davis 2010-2011\Prisoner\PSLC\10cv2516_Order Denying IFP and Dismissing.wpd, 122010 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GREEN, Civil No. 10-2516 JLS (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF

PAROLE HEARINGS,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has filed a request to proceed in forma

pauperis which reflects a $21.31 balance in his prison trust account. The filing fee associated

with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). It appears Petitioner can pay the

requisite filing fee. Accordingly, the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED. 

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

Case 3:10-cv-02516-JLS-JMA Document 4 Filed 12/20/10 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

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Sammartino\Colin Davis 2010-2011\Prisoner\PSLC\10cv2516_Order Denying IFP and Dismissing.wpd, 122010 -2-

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

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 “The State of California Board of Parole

Hearings,” 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). 

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:10-cv-02516-JLS-JMA Document 4 Filed 12/20/10 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

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Sammartino\Colin Davis 2010-2011\Prisoner\PSLC\10cv2516_Order Denying IFP and Dismissing.wpd, 122010 -3-

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the above, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. To have the case reopened, Petitioner may submit a

copy of this order along with the requisite fee AND a First Amended Petition which cures the

pleading deficiencies noted above no later than February 22, 2011. The Clerk of Court is

directed to send Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 20, 2010

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02516-JLS-JMA Document 4 Filed 12/20/10 Page 3 of 3