Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01330/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01330-0/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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1330dismiss3.wpd, 11268 -1- 08cv1330

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN O’HINES, Civil No. 08-1330 WQH (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

v.

DEPT WARDEN TOERS-BIJNS, Warden, et

al.,

Respondents.

On July 21, 2008, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [Doc. No. 1.] On August 5, 2008, this

Court issued an Order dismissing the case without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to either pay

the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the filing fee. [Doc. No.

4.] To have the case reopened, Petitioner was advised that he must either pay the $5.00 filing

fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee by September 30, 2008. 

On August 18, 2008, Petitioner submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, which the Court granted on October 8, 2008. [Doc. Nos. 3, 4.]. The Court also

dismissed the action because Petitioner already had a petition for writ of habeas corpus pending

in this Court under case number 08cv0698 which appeared to challenge the same conviction as

he was challenging in the present case. (See case number 08cv0698 [doc. no. 8 at 1].) In the

Court’s October 8, 2008 Order, Petitioner was directed to clarify for the Court whether he was

Case 3:08-cv-01330-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/26/08 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1330dismiss3.wpd, 11268 -2- 08cv1330

indeed challenging the same conviction as he was challenging in case number 08cv0698 or

whether he was challenging a separate conviction. On October 29, 2008, Petitioner filed a First

Amended Petition.

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.

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 “Ombudsman John Ontiveros, Matt Mulford

18400, 110 West A. Street, Ste 1100,” 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

/ / /

Case 3:08-cv-01330-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/26/08 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1330dismiss3.wpd, 11268 -3- 08cv1330

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 STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM 

Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner

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

United States.

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.

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 claims: (1) “abnormally dangerous activity in re: the absolute priority

rule”; (2) “duplicitous appeal from two separate judgments from a judgement or order or from

two orders”; (3) Native American private citizen person aka Yellow Fox of seminoles-cherokeechoctaw-blackfoot Indian tribes eligibility indispensable party”; and (4) “quitain (sic) action.”

(See Pet. at 6-9.) 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.

VENUE

Finally, it is not clear that the United States District Court for the Southern District of

California is the proper venue for Petitioner’s petition. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may

be filed in the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner

is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See

Case 3:08-cv-01330-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/26/08 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\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\08cv1330dismiss3.wpd, 11268 -4- 08cv1330

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973).

Petitioner is presently confined in Florence, Arizona, which is within the jurisdictional

boundaries of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 82.

On page one of the petition, Petitioner states he is challenging a conviction from the San Luis

Obispo County court, which is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2).

If this is correct, jurisdiction would exist in Arizona and the Central District of California, but

not in the Southern District of California. Petitioner is thus advised that he must file in either

of those district courts if he seeks to challenge a state court conviction from San Luis Obispo

County.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice and with

leave to amend. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must file a Second Amended

Petition no later than January 30, 2009. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO

MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK SECOND AMENDED PETITION FORM TO

PETITIONER TOGETHER WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 26, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01330-WQH-NLS Document 8 Filed 11/26/08 Page 4 of 4