Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02626/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02626-1/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\WQH\09CV2626 dismiss FAP.wpd, 2410 -1- 09cv2626

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN O’HINES, Civil No. 09-2626 WQH (AJB)

Petitioner,

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

JAN BREWER, Arizona Governor, et al, 

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has $0.00 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.

The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of

the filing fee.

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 6 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 4
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\WQH\09CV2626 dismiss FAP.wpd, 2410 -2- 09cv2626

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.

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 “Arizona Governor, California Governor,” as

Respondent. Additionally, Edmund Brown, 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, “if the applicant is not presently in custody pursuant to a state judgement

against which he seeks relief but may be subject to such custody in the future,” then “the officer

having present custody of the applicant as well as the attorney general of the state in which the

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 6 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 4
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\WQH\09CV2626 dismiss FAP.wpd, 2410 -3- 09cv2626

judgment which he seeks to attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.” 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, 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).

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition

“shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the

petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058

(9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner

made conclusory allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief).

Here, Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). Although Petitioner does not fail to state generalized

constitutional grounds for relief, he does fails to provide specific factual allegations in support

of such grounds.

While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and understanding,

this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief.

Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court finds that the Petition

contains conclusory allegations without any specific facts in support of relief. A federal court

may not entertain a petition that contains allegations which are conclusory. 

This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and

make sense of the Petition. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real

possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail

to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus

review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the

allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate 

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 6 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 4
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\WQH\09CV2626 dismiss FAP.wpd, 2410 -4- 09cv2626

objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the

lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to assert

appropriate objections and defenses.

Due to Petitioner’s unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without

prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file a new petition, he is advised to clearly and succinctly

state all grounds for relief using the Second Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this

order.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, and

DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to name a proper

respondent and state grounds for relief in the First Amended Petition. To have this case

reopened, Petitioner must file a Second Amended Petition no later than April 6, 2010 which

remedies the pleading deficiencies noted in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send

Petitioner a blank Second Amended Petition form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 4, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 6 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 4