Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01251/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01251-0/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 

, 

t· t _~ ___ • 

14 JUN -5 PH 12: I 0 

(:lEHK. u.s. DISTRICT COURT ,-.'_;:YIIH?~~ O\S1HIGT OF CALIFORHI.\ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPUT Y 

MATTHEW L. SMELTZER, Civil No. 14-1251 WQH (WVG) 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER: 

(1) CONSTRUING ACTION AS A 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

19 Petitioner, a state civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

20 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his civil commitment under 

21 California's Sexually Violent Predator Act. 

22 FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 

23 Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed 

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

25 $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the 

26 case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to 

27 proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than Au\:ust 4. 2014, a copy of this 

28 Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. The Clerk 

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-01251-WQH-WVG Document 2 Filed 06/05/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
J 

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

2 Application to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. 

3 BASIS FOR PETITION 

4 Petitioner alleges in his current petition that he is in custody pursuant to civil 

5 commitment He challenges his involuntary civil commitment to the custody of the 

6 California Department of Mental Health as a sexually violent predator, pursuant to a 

7 judgment of the San Diego Superior Court. Although Petitioner filed this action 

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, involuntary commitment satisfies the custody requirement 

9 of28 U.S.C. § 2254. Duncan v. Walker, 553 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (state court order of 

10 civil commitment satisfies § 2254's "in custody" requirement). Section 2254 is properly 

11 understood as "in effect implementing the general grant of habeas corpus authority found 

12 in § 2241, as long as the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, 

13 and not in state custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody 

14 awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction." 

15 White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1006, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has 

16 observed that section 2254 a state civil detainee under an involuntary civil commitment 

17 scheme appropriately uses a § 2254 habeas petition to challenge the legality of a term of 

18 confinement. See Huflile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2005). 

19 Therefore, this Court construes this action as one brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

20 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 

21 Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper 

22 respondent. On federal habeas, a petitioner must name the state officer having custody 

23 of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891,894 (9th Cir. 1996) 

24 (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when 

25 a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. A proper named respondent 

26 in federal habeas proceedings is one who "has the power to order the petitioner's 

27 release." Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350,355, fn. 3 (9th Cir. 2004). If"a petitioner is in 

28 custody due to the state action he is challenging, '[t]he named respondent shall be the 

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-01251-WQH-WVG Document 2 Filed 06/05/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
.1 

1 state officer who has official custody of the petitioner (for example, the warden of the 

2 prison).'" Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894 (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 

3 advisory committee's note). Under California law, sexually violent predator committees 

4 are in "the custody ofthe State Department of Mental Health." Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 

5 § 6604. 

6 Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named "California" as the respondent. In order 

7 for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the 

8 Director of California's Department of State Hospitals or the Executive Director of the 

9 facility in which he is currently confined. See Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 

10 378,379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

11 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

12 Based on the foregoing, the Court CONSTRUES this action as a petition for writ 

13 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and DISMISSES the petition for failure to 

14 satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to name a proper respondent. In order to 

15 have this case reopened, Petitioner must (1) pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof 

16 of his inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition which names a proper 

17 respondent, no later than AUl:ust 4. 2014. For Petitioner's convenience, the Clerk of 

18 Court shall attach to this Order a blank in forma pauperis application and a blank 28 

19 U.S.C. § 2254 First Amended Petition form. 

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

21 DATED: #4' 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-01251-WQH-WVG Document 2 Filed 06/05/14 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3