Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04047/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04047-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-4047 RS (PR)

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 *E-Filed 10/19/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSEPH VICTOR LAGANA,

Petitioner,

v.

GREG MUNKS, 

Respondent. /

No. C 15-4047 RS (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court’s order to (1) file a complete 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), or (2) pay the filing fee of $5.00. His

application lacks two necessary documents: a Certificate of Funds signed by an authorized

prison officer (the one submitted was not signed), and a prison trust fund account statement

showing transactions for the last six months. Accordingly, this habeas action is DISMISSED

without prejudice for failure to respond to the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Because this dismissal is without prejudice, petitioner

may move to reopen the action. Any motion to reopen must contain (1) a properly

completed IFP application, which contains the two documents listed above, or (2) full

payment for the filing fee. His IFP application (Docket No. 5) is DENIED as insufficient.

Case 3:15-cv-04047-RS Document 6 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-4047 RS (PR)

2 ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Greg Munks, the Sheriff of San Mateo

County and head of the jail in which petitioner is housed, is the sole respondent in this action. 

Petitioner erroneously named other persons as respondents. Munks is the sole proper

respondent in this action, as he is the custodian having day-to-day control over petitioner, the

only person who can produce “the body” of the petitioner. Brittingham v. United States, 982

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C. Cir.

1986)). The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 5, enter judgment in favor of respondent and

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04047-RS Document 6 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2