Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02122/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02122-1/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

16cv2122 BTM (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

RAUL A. BARAJAS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. GRAVES, Lieutenant , 

Respondent.

Case No.: 16cv2122 BTM (KSC)

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS and (2) 

DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in 

which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the 

Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows 

Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being 

required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of 

the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the 

filing fee.

Case 3:16-cv-02122-BTM-KSC Document 9 Filed 08/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2122 BTM (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

FAILURE TO NAME A 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 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 “Lieutenant R. Graves, [Pelican Bay State 

Prison]” as Respondent. Petitioner is currently confined at Calipatria State Prison. 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). 

Case 3:16-cv-02122-BTM-KSC Document 9 Filed 08/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2122 BTM (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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis 

and 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 26, 2016, which names a proper respondent in

conformance with this Order. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court will 

attach a blank form petition to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2016 

 Hon. Barry Ted. Moskowitz

 United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02122-BTM-KSC Document 9 Filed 08/30/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3