Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00614-0/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

1

“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him

or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in which

the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992).”

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254). Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of

personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). Petitioner should

name the warden of the facility in which he is incarcerated as respondent in this action in any

amended petition.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCISCO JARA, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0614 DFL GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

 

Respondents.1 ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable

to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Case 2:05-cv-00614-RRB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Petitioner inaptly states within his federal petition that he is challenging the

February 16, 2005 state supreme court denial of his state court habeas petition. A review of

petitioner’s filings in support of the instant petition appears to indicate, however, that petitioner

is challenging an October 5, 2003 prison disciplinary hearing wherein petitioner was assessed a

loss of time credits for failure to comport with prison grooming regulations. The petition will be

dismissed but petitioner will be granted leave to file an amended petition on a new form provided

by the Court Clerk. 

Petitioner must fill out the petition form accurately so as to indicate, e.g., the

hearing decision, sentence or conviction he is actually challenging and that the February 16, 2005 

state supreme court denial represents exhaustion of his state court remedies with respect to the

grounds upon which he challenges the hearing decision, etc. Petitioner should also name the

warden of the facility in which he is incarcerated as respondent. See footnote 1. Petitioner need

not file additional exhibits. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; 

2. The petition is dismissed with leave granted for petitioner to file, within 30

days, an amended petition on the form to be provided by this court; failure to file an amended

petition will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action; 

3. In any amended application, petitioner should name the proper respondent;

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide petitioner with a form appropriate

for this district for a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; and 

5. Petitioner need not file additional exhibits.

DATED: 4/26/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

jara0614.ord

Case 2:05-cv-00614-RRB-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 2