Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00772/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00772-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER A. THOMAS, Civil No. 14-0772 GPC (MDD)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNNAMED,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 1

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee.

FAILURE TO NAME A 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.

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

Although not entirely clear from the face of the petition, it appears Petition is in custody at 1

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran. 

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-00772-GPC-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/09/14 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

27

28

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 failed to name a 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). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to

Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must

file a First Amended Petition no later than June 9, 2014 in conformance with this Order. (A

blank petition form is included with this Order for Petitioner’s convenience.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-00772-GPC-MDD Document 2 Filed 04/09/14 Page 2 of 2