Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01107/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01107-0/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

-1- 07CV01107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH EDWARD CRENSHAW, Civil No. 07-1107 JM (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, 

Respondent.

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later

than August 21, 2007, 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

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).

Case 3:07-cv-01107-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/02/07 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

-2- 07CV01107

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 Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895.

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named the “California Board of Prison Terms” 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). 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:07-cv-01107-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/02/07 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

-3- 07CV01107

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to

amend. In order to have this case reopened, Petitioner must (1) satisfy the filing fee

 requirement and (2) file a First Amended Petition that corrects the pleading deficiency discussed above,

no later than August 21, 2007. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach a blank

request to proceed forma pauperis form and a blank First Amended Petition form, to this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 2, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:07-cv-01107-JM-WMC Document 3 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 3