Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00270/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00270-0/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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 2812 -1- 12cv0270

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA S. ALVAREZ, Civil No. 12-0270 AJB (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and

(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

UNKNOWN, Warden,

Respondent.

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional institution in which he is

presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:12-cv-00270-AJB-DHB Document 7 Filed 02/08/12 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 2812 -2- 12cv0270

FAILURE TO USE THE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with

the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be

submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the

Court. Presently, Petitioner has submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on a nonapproved form. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition also 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.

Case 3:12-cv-00270-AJB-DHB Document 7 Filed 02/08/12 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\BATTAGLI\DJ CASES\2 Orders to be filed\grtIFP&dismiss.wpd, 2812 -3- 12cv0270

Here, Petitioner has not named any 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).

FAILURE TO SIGN PETITION

In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he

petition shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten and shall be signed under penalty of perjury

by the petitioner.” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has

failed to sign the Petition. Petitioner is advised that if she files “First Amended Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus,” it must be signed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. To have this

case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than April 13, 2012. The

Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank First Amended Petition form together

with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00270-AJB-DHB Document 7 Filed 02/08/12 Page 3 of 3