Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01810/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01810-1/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\RBB\06cv1810-sub&notice.wpd, 9206 -1- 06cv1810

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEYON R. GEORGE, Civil No. 06cv1810-BTM (RBB)

Petitioner, ORDER:

(1) SUA SPONTE SUBSTITUTING

RESPONDENTS; AND,

(2) NOTIFYING PETITIONER OF 

POSSIBLE DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING

FEE REQUIREMENT

v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

SUA SPONTE SUBSTITUTION OF RESPONDENTS

A review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent.

Petitioner has named the People of the State of California and Bill Lockyer, the Attorney

General of California, as Respondents. 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).

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.

Case 3:06-cv-01810-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 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\RBB\06cv1810-sub&notice.wpd, 9206 -2- 06cv1810

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. Thus, “the People of the State of California” is not a proper respondent.

Additionally, Bill Lockyer, the Attorney General of the State of California, is not a proper

respondent in this action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer

having custody of the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

However, “[i]f the petitioner is not yet in custody – but may be subject to future custody – under

the state-court judgment being contested, the petition must name as respondents both the officer

who has current custody and the attorney general of the state where the judgement was entered.”

Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the

Attorney General as a respondent in this action.

In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, 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 must be named as a Respondent.

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

therefore sua sponte substitutes James E. Tilton, the Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections as Respondent for the People of the State of California and Bill Lockyer.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

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

Rule 3.2. 

Petitioner is advised that in order to avoid dismissal of his case, he must either pay the

$5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the filing fee no later than

November 20, 2006. If Petitioner does not pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of

Case 3:06-cv-01810-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 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

1

 The Court cautions Petitioner that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

of 1996 (AEDPA) a one-year period of limitation shall apply to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from

the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such

review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application

created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the

United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by

such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was

initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly

recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to

cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(d)(1)(A)-(D) (West Supp. 2006).

The statute of limitations does not run while a properly filed state habeas corpus petition is

pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); see Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1999). But see

Bonner v. Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that state application for postconviction relief which is ultimately dismissed as untimely was neither “properly filed” nor “pending,”

and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations), as amended 439 F.3d 993, petition for cert. filed, –U.S.–, No. 05-11438 (June 5, 2006). However, absent some other basis for tolling, the statute of

limitations does run while a federal habeas petition is pending. Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82

(2001).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\RBB\06cv1810-sub&notice.wpd, 9206 -3- 06cv1810

his inability pay the fee by November 20, 2006, his case will be dismissed without prejudice, and

he will have to begin again by filing a new petition which may be barred by the statute of

limitations.1

 The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Motion to Proceed

in Forma Pauperis form, including the proper Prison Certificate form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2006 Ruben B. Brooks 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01810-BTM-RBB Document 4 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 3