Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00283/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00283-2/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

JAMES E. KULKA, Civil No. 14cv0283-LAB (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

K. HARRIS, Attorney General of California,

Respondent.

On July 18, 2013, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to the District Court for the Northern

District of California, and paid the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition in

that Court on December 11, 2013. Because Petitioner is apparently challenging a conviction

from the San Diego County Superior Court, the matter was transferred to this Court. 

Review of the First Amended 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). “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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0283-Dismiss.wpd, 21914 -1- 14cv0283

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 9 Filed 02/19/14 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

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 “K. Harris, Attorney General of California,” as

Respondent. The Attorney General of the State of California is not a proper respondent in this

action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer having custody of

the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. However, “[i]f

the petitioner is not yet in custody – but may be subject to future custody – under the state-court

judgment being contested, the petition must name as respondents both the officer who has

current custody and the attorney general of the state where the judgement was entered.” Rule

2(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner indicates that he is currently serving a sentence of 15

years-to-life for the conviction he is challenging. (Pet. at 2.) Thus, there is no basis to have

named the Attorney General as a respondent in this action.

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\13cv0283-Dismiss.wpd, 21914 -2- 14cv0283

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 9 Filed 02/19/14 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 Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to name a proper

Respondent. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this matter, he must file a Second Amended

Petition which names a proper Respondent on or before March 31, 2014. The Clerk of Court

shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California amended petition form along with

a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 17, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\13cv0283-Dismiss.wpd, 21914 -3- 14cv0283

Case 3:14-cv-00283-LAB-RBB Document 9 Filed 02/19/14 Page 3 of 3