Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02372/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02372-1/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

18cv2372-GPC (JLB)

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

JUAN M. CASTRO CASTANEDA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNNAMED,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2372-GPC (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On September 9, 2018, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 

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

Northern District of California, challenging a conviction from the San Diego County 

Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) On October 5, 2018, the Petition was transferred to this 

Court. (ECF No. 6.) For the following reasons, the Petition is subject to dismissal without 

prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure 

to sign the Petition under penalty of perjury, and failure to name a Respondent.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the 

$5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case 

without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Case 3:18-cv-02372-GPC-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2372-GPC (JLB)

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

FAILURE TO SIGN PETITION

Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he petition 

must be printed, typewritten or legibly handwritten; and be signed under penalty of perjury 

by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2242.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed 

to sign the Petition. (ECF No. 1 at 12.) The Court therefore DISMISSES the action 

without prejudice to refiling of a “First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” 

which is signed by Petitioner.

FAILURE TO NAME A 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). “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 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 

Case 3:18-cv-02372-GPC-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2372-GPC (JLB)

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

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 failed to name a 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 he 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).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. To have 

this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no later than December 17, 2018, a copy of 

this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and file 

a First Amended Petition which cures the defects identified in this Order. The Clerk of 

Court shall send a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis application and 

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

copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02372-GPC-JLB Document 9 Filed 10/22/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3