Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02333/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02333-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL DWAYNE TRY ALS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Warden, 

Respondent. 

Civil No. 12-2333 BEN (RBB) 

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

APPLICATION, 

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, and 

(3) DENYING STAY WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AS MOOT 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has 

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a request· 

to proceed in forma pauperis. He has also filed a motion to stay the proceedings. 

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis reflects a $23.43 balance in his prison 

trust account. The filing fee associated with this type of action is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a). It appears Petitioner can pay the requisite filing fee. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the case without prejudice; 

Petitioner may submit a copy ofthis order along with the requisite fee no later than November 

29,2012, to have the case reopened. 

-1­

Case 3:12-cv-02333-BEN-RBB Document 5 Filed 10/12/12 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 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 

Review ofthe 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. 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 of the 

prison).'" Id. (quoting Rule 2,28 U.S.C. foIl. § 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" 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 F.3 d 

at 895. 

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named the "State ofCalifornia," as 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). 

III 

III 

-2­

Case 3:12-cv-02333-BEN-RBB Document 5 Filed 10/12/12 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 

MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS 

Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay the proceedings while he exhausts the claims 

raised in the Petition in the state courts. (ECF No.3.) According to the Petition, a petition for 

habeas corpus is currently pending before the California are currently pending before the San 

Diego County Superior Court. (Pet. at 4.) Because the Petition must be dismissed for the 

reasons discussed above, the motion is DENIED without prejUdice as moot. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis, 

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

respondent, To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than November 29,2012 (1) 

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

Amended Petition which names a proper respondent. The motion to stay the proceeding is 

DENIED without prejudice to refiling if and when the case is reopened. (For Petitioner's 

convenience, the Clerk a/Court shall attach to this Order a blank First Amended Petition/arm 

United States District Judge 

cc: ALL PARTIES 

and a blank applicatio 

I:.uo.'"LiD. 

DATED: --l--+-'---+-W=--_y_.,...---­ ___ 

Roger T. BenItez 

-3­

Case 3:12-cv-02333-BEN-RBB Document 5 Filed 10/12/12 Page 3 of 3