Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02534/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02534-0/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

3:16-cv-02534 GPC (NLS)

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

DAMONTE LUCAS,

Petitioner,

v.

BONNIE DUMANIS, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-02534 GPC (NLS)

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 FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 3:16-cv-02534-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/12/16 Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-02534 GPC (NLS)

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

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 “Bonnie Dumanis, District Attorney,” 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

Accordingly, the Court 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 December 19, 2016. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Petitioner a 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02534-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/12/16 Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-02534 GPC (NLS)

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

blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis form and a blank First Amended Petition 

form together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02534-GPC-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/12/16 Page 3 of 3