Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01446/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01446-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WARD, JR.,

Petitioner,

 v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Respondents /

No. C-06-1446 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED

PETITION; DENYING AS MOOT

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Before the Court is petitioner Ronald Ward, Jr.’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and his First Amended Petition (“FAP”), both filed April 11, 2006.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), where a petitioner seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis, the district court must dismiss the case if the district court determines the

petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Having reviewed the FAP, in which petitioner seeks a writ of habeas

corpus, the Court finds petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted.

By order filed March 14, 2006, the Court dismissed the initial petition because

petitioner failed to allege he was “in custody” when he filed the petition. See Chaker v.

Crogan, 428 F. 3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding district court lacks jurisdiction over

petition where petitioner not “in custody” when petition filed). The Court granted petitioner

Case 3:06-cv-01446-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 2
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

leave to allege “facts to indicate he was in custody on February 27, 2006,” the date he filed

the initial petition. (See Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus With Leave to

Amend at 3:13.) In his FAP, petitioner fails to include any such facts, and, indeed, alleges

that he is “not in custody.” (See FAP at 2.) Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction over

the FAP.

Additionally, in its March 14, 2006 order, the Court dismissed the initial petition

because petitioner had failed to name as a respondent “the state officer having custody of

him.” See Smith v. Idaho, 392 F. 3d 350, 354 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court granted petitioner

leave to allege “the name of the person(s) who have custody of [petitioner].” (See Order

Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus With Leave to Amend at 3:15.) In his FAP,

petitioner fails to allege the name of any such individual. Consequently, the FAP is subject

to dismissal for failure to allege a proper respondent. See Smith, 392 F. 2d at at 355 n.3

(holding district court may not hear petition where petitioner fails to amend to name

respondent who could grant relief requested).

In sum, petitioner has failed to cure deficiencies identified by the Court in its March

14, 2006 order. There being no indication that further leave to amend would enable

petitioner to cure the above-referenced deficiencies, the Court will dismiss the FAP, without

further leave to amend. Additionally, because the FAP will be dismissed, petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied as moot.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the FAP is hereby DISMISSED, without leave to

amend. The application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01446-MMC Document 5 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 2