Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00291/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00291-0/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\CHMB_Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\10cv291 - Arguilez - CORRECTED FINAL ORDER Dismissing without Prejudice.wpd, 3410 -1- 10cv0291

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOREL ARGUILEZ, Civil No. 10cv0291 WQH (PCL)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and paid the filing fee. Review of the Petition, however,

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).

Case 3:10-cv-00291-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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\CHMB_Hayes\SIGNED ORDERS\10cv291 - Arguilez - CORRECTED FINAL ORDER Dismissing without Prejudice.wpd, 3410 -2- 10cv0291

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 “The People 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).

Accordingly, the Court 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 April 26, 2010 in conformance with this Order. For Petitioner’s

convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank First Amended Petition form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 4, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00291-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2