Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01944/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01944-0/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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv1944_dismiss.wpd, 82511 -1- 11cv1944

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE KISER, Civil No. 11-1944 DMS (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

CALIFORNIA MEN’S COLONY,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

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. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or

qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

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.

Case 3:11-cv-01944-DMS-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/25/11 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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv1944_dismiss.wpd, 82511 -2- 11cv1944

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 incorrectly named “California Men’s Colony,” 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

Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d

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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to

amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must no later than October 28, 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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01944-DMS-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/25/11 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

C:\Documents and Settings\Moanam\Local Settings\Temp\notes4DFDCF\11cv1944_dismiss.wpd, 82511 -3- 11cv1944

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: August 25, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01944-DMS-NLS Document 3 Filed 08/25/11 Page 3 of 3