Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00661/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00661-1/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\Chmb_Anello\ODD # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\11cv0661-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 41211 -1- 11cv0661

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CORNELIUS ANDERSON, Civil No. 11cv0661-MMA (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

JUDGE FOSTER, et al.,

Respondents.

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

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

pauperis. 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds 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. 

FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT

The Petition is subject to dismissal, however, because 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)

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 8 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 4
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\Chmb_Anello\ODD # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\11cv0661-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 41211 -2- 11cv0661

(citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility

in which the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. 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).

Here, Petitioner has named several Judges as Respondents. 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.

In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name

the warden in charge of the correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United

States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, although Petitioner’s allegations are not entirely clear, it appears that he has

failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United

States, or that he is otherwise in custody in violation of federal law. 

Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following scope of review for

federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district

court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). See Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714, 719 (9th Cir.

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 8 Filed 04/12/11 Page 2 of 4
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\Chmb_Anello\ODD # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\11cv0661-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 41211 -3- 11cv0661

1991); Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 579 (9th Cir. 1988); Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800

F.2d 1463, 1464-65 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, to present a cognizable federal habeas corpus claim

under § 2254, a state prisoner must allege both that he is in custody pursuant to a “judgment of

a State court,” and that he is in custody in “violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

Here, Petitioner appears to claim that his personal property has been taken in violation

of the federal Constitution. (See Pet. at 11-28.) In no way does Petitioner claim he is “in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Rather, although not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to be alleging that his personal

property was taken without due process of law.

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought in a petition for

a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, whereas challenges to conditions of

confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or

duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is

entitled to immediate release or a speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner

who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact

or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809,

811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Preiser left open the possibility of assertion of a conditions-of-confinement claim in a

habeas application where additional and unconstitutional restraints are at issue. See Preiser, 411

U.S. at 499 (“This is not to say that habeas corpus may not also be available to challenge such

prison conditions. When a prisoner is put under additional and unconstitutional restraints during

his lawful custody, it is arguable that habeas corpus will lie to remove the restraints making the

custody illegal.”) The allegations of the taking of personal property as apparently alleged in the

instant Petition are not the type of “additional and unconstitutional restraints” which are distinct

from conditions of confinement, and Petitioner’s allegations therefore do not state a claim

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 8 Filed 04/12/11 Page 3 of 4
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\Chmb_Anello\ODD # CIVIL CASES\HABEAS\DISMISSALS\11cv0661-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 41211 -4- 11cv0661

cognizable on federal habeas. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971); Tucker v.

Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1991).

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a

habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas

relief because he has failed to name a proper respondent and failed to state a claim cognizable

on federal habeas. Petitioner should consider whether his claims are properly brought in a civil

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than in a habeas petition. If so, Petitioner

is free to file a separate civil rights complaint which will be assigned a separate civil case

number.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to name a proper

respondent and failure to state a claim cognizable on federal habeas. The dismissal is without

prejudice to Petitioner to file a First Amended Petition in which he names a proper respondent

and states a claim which is cognizable on federal habeas. The dismissal is also without prejudice

to Petitioner, if he wishes, to present his claims in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, rather than a habeas petition, which will be assigned a separate civil number. To have

this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended Petition no later than June 9, 2011, in

conformance with this Order. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District

of California amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 Civil Rights Complaint form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 12, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:11-cv-00661-MMA-DHB Document 8 Filed 04/12/11 Page 4 of 4