Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02179/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02179-0/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 

\ 2 Oel -9 Pi1 \2: 59 \ , ~; . vi '_ ,I J" :~: .. \ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMAL AHBAKl DAVIS, Civil No. 12-2179 WQH (DHB) 

Petitioner, 

ORDER 

v. 

UNKNOWN, 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, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to 

move to proceed in forma pauperis. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIRMENT 

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. foIl. § 2254. IfPetitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, 

no later than December 28,2012, 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 

In addition, the case must be dismissed because Petitioner 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 

-1­

Case 3:12-cv-02179-WQH-DHB Document 3 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2(a), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 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 ofthe 

institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated ... or the chief officer in charge ofstate penal 

institutions.'" Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 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 ofthe 

prison).'" Id. (quoting Rule 2,28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254 advisory committee's note). 

lOAlong standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds "that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of] 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

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 ofthe state prisoner, the person who will produce "the 

body" ifdirected to do so by the Court. "Both the warden ofa California prison and the Director 

ofCorrections for California have the power to produce the prisoner." Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 FJd 

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 ofthe state correctional 

facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary ofthe California Department 

of Corrections 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 name a proper respondent. To have this 

case reopened, Petitioner must (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his 

inability to pay and (2) file a First Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiency 

III 

-2­

Case 3:12-cv-02179-WQH-DHB Document 3 Filed 10/09/12 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 

outlined in this order, no later than December 28. 2012. 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:' /&I:r//2­

cc: ALL PARTIES 

-3­

Case 3:12-cv-02179-WQH-DHB Document 3 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 3