Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02177/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02177-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\11cv2177-dismiss.wpd, 92211 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA CHRISTOPHER DIAZ, Civil No. 11-2177 MMA (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

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 THE FILING FEE REQUIRMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move 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. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must

submit, no later than November 21, 2011, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with

adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Furthermore, 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

Case 3:11-cv-02177-MMA-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/22/11 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\11cv2177-dismiss.wpd, 92211 -2-

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 “People of the State of California,” 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

Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice because

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failed to name a proper respondent.

To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than November 21, 2011, (1) either pay

the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended

Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. For Petitioner’s convenience, the

Case 3:11-cv-02177-MMA-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/22/11 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\MMA\11cv2177-dismiss.wpd, 92211 -3-

Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank Southern District of California In Forma

Pauperis Application and a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-02177-MMA-WVG Document 6 Filed 09/22/11 Page 3 of 3