Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00816/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00816-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\09cv0816 dismiss.wpd, 4279 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS E. THREATS, Civil No. 09-0816 IEG (AJB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

D. K. SISTO, 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.

FAILURE TO SATISFY 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. 

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.

Case 3:09-cv-00816-IEG-AJB Document 2 Filed 04/27/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\09cv0816 dismiss.wpd, 4279 -2-

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 “D. K. Sisto,” 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). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with leave to amend

for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and name a proper respondent. If

Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than June 30, 2009, 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 which names a proper respondent.

Case 3:09-cv-00816-IEG-AJB Document 2 Filed 04/27/09 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\09cv0816 dismiss.wpd, 4279 -3-

 The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank Southern District of California In

Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner and a blank First Amended Petition form along

with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 27, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-00816-IEG-AJB Document 2 Filed 04/27/09 Page 3 of 3