Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02052/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02052-0/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

19cv2052-GPC (AHG)

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

CHAKA D. GILBERT,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN BERNARDINO and COALINGA,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv2052-GPC (AHG)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a person detained at the California Department of State Hospitals, 

Coalinga, is proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice for 

failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a respondent, failure to sign the 

Petition, and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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. 

FAILURE TO NAME 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 

Case 3:19-cv-02052-GPC-AHG Document 2 Filed 10/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv2052-GPC (AHG)

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

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). Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “San Bernardino” and 

“Coalinga” as respondents.

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. Here, Petitioner has failed to sign the Petition. 

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, 

Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the 

Constitution of the United States. 

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for 

federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court 

shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that 

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Case 3:19-cv-02052-GPC-AHG Document 2 Filed 10/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv2052-GPC (AHG)

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

Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim under § 2254, a state 

prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of a State court,” 

and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner does not identify any claims, but sets forth what appears to be a 

narrative regarding how he came to be housed at the California Department of State 

Hospitals, Coalinga. (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) In no way does he claim he is “in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Thus, as currently pleaded, Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable habeas claim.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice for failure to 

satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a proper respondent, failure to sign the 

Petition and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with 

this action, he must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma 

pauperis and file a First Amended Petition which is signed, names a proper respondent, 

and states a cognizable federal habeas claim on or before December 31, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02052-GPC-AHG Document 2 Filed 10/31/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3