Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02414/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02414-0/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\IEG\06cv2414-dismord.wpd, 1176 -1- 06cv2414

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY W. HUNTER, Civil No. 06-2414 IEG (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

v.

G.J. GIURBINO, Warden

Respondent.

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 either pay the $5.00 filing fee or 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 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 current 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 3:06-cv-02414-IEG-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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\IEG\06cv2414-dismord.wpd, 1176 -2- 06cv2414

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 “G..J. Giurbino,” 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 due to Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement and name a proper

respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must no later than January 12, 2007: (1)

pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, AND (2) file a

First Amended Petition which cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in this Order. THE 

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-02414-IEG-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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\IEG\06cv2414-dismord.wpd, 1176 -3- 06cv2414

CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MAIL PETITIONER A BLANK MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FORM AND A BLANK FIRST AMENDED

PETITION FORM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2006

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02414-IEG-BLM Document 2 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 3