Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00699/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00699-0/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

JOSHUA A. WILLARD, Civil No. 14-0699 H (BGS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Warden

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. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the

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

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

proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than June 5, 2014, a copy of this Order

with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Furthermore, 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.

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-00699-H-BGS Document 3 Filed 04/15/14 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

1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courtslack personal jurisdiction

when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.

The warden isthe 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 “District Attorney,” 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 orthe Secretary ofthe California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation. 

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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to

Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failure to name a proper

respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than June 6, 2014,

(1) either pay the filing fee or provide proof of his inability to pay and (2) file a First

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00699-H-BGS Document 3 Filed 04/15/14 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

Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiency outlined above. For Petitioner’s

convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order, a blank petition form and a

blank in forma pauperis application.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2014 ______________________________________

Marilyn L. Huff

United States District Judge

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-00699-H-BGS Document 3 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 3