Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00276/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00276-0/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\WQH\11cv0276_denyIFP&dism.wpd, 22511 -1- 11cv0276

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. JACKSON, Civil No. 11-0276 WQH (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

UNKNOWN, 

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has not provided

the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financial status. A request to

proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the warden

or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00276-WQH-WMC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 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\WQH\11cv0276_denyIFP&dism.wpd, 22511 -2- 11cv0276

in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to

provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

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 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 not named a 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 Director of the California Department

of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00276-WQH-WMC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 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\WQH\11cv0276_denyIFP&dism.wpd, 22511 -3- 11cv0276

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in form pauperis and

DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have the case

reopened, Petitioner must, no later than May 11, 2011: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR submit

adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee; AND (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures

the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail

Petitioner a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank First Amended

Petition form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 25, 2011

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00276-WQH-WMC Document 4 Filed 02/25/11 Page 3 of 3