Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00109/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00109-0/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

19cv0109 LAB (KSC)

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

DOROTHY CRACE MARAGLINO,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv0109 LAB (KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

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 REQUIRMENT

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, she must submit, no later than March 25, 2019, a copy of this Order with 

the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of her inability to pay the fee. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

Further, 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 

Case 3:19-cv-00109-LAB-KSC Document 2 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv0109 LAB (KSC)

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

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 “The People of the State of California,” 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 Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per 

curiam). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and failed to name a 

Case 3:19-cv-00109-LAB-KSC Document 2 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv0109 LAB (KSC)

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

proper respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than March 25, 

2019, (1) pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of her inability to pay and (2) file a 

First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies set forth above. For 

Petitioner’s convenience, a blank First Amended Petition form and a blank In Form 

Pauperis Application are included with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2019

 Larry Alan Burns

 Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-00109-LAB-KSC Document 2 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3