Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00875/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00875-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAHAZIEL FAUSTO, Civil No. 12cv0875-MMA (DHB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

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

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also submitted a copy of his inmate

trust account statement, which the Court will construe as a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in which he

is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. 

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

-1- 12cv0875

Case 3:12-cv-00875-MMA-DHB Document 4 Filed 04/16/12 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

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). 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 failed to name 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 and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992) (per curiam).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSES

the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to name a respondent. To have this case

reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than June 11, 2012, in

conformance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 16, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

-2- 12cv0875

Case 3:12-cv-00875-MMA-DHB Document 4 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2