Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00560/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00560-0/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

DEGHAWN BROADNAX, Civil No. 12-0560 MMA (RBB)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and 

(2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, 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.

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has filed a document declaring his indigence which this Court construes as a

request to proceed in forma pauperis. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied

because 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 has failed to provide the Court with the required Prison

Certificate. 

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Anello\EVEN # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\12cv0560 dismiss.wpd, 3912 -1-

Case 3:12-cv-00560-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 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

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 “Kathleen Allison,” 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 or the Director of the

California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.

1992) (per curiam). 

//

//

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Anello\EVEN # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\12cv0560 dismiss.wpd, 3912 -2-

Case 3:12-cv-00560-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 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

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 in the petition.

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. 

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 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 First Amended Petition form sent to Petitioner with this

order.

//

//

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Anello\EVEN # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\12cv0560 dismiss.wpd, 3912 -3-

Case 3:12-cv-00560-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 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

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis, and DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave to amend for Petitioner’s

failure to name a proper respondent, and state grounds for relief in the petition. In order to have

this case reopened, Petitioner must submit no later than May 15, 2012, a copy of this Order

with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND a First Amended

Petition that cures the deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a

blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application and blank First Amended

Petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\Chmb_Anello\EVEN # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\12cv0560 dismiss.wpd, 3912 -4-

Case 3:12-cv-00560-GPC-RBB Document 3 Filed 03/09/12 Page 4 of 4