Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02569/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02569-0/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\DMS\10cv2569 dismiss.wpd, 122810 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY CHARLES ALTO, Civil No. 10-2569 DMS (WMc)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SUSAN L. HUBBARD, 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 pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma

pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee

or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice.

See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

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.

Case 3:10-cv-02569-DMS-WMC Document 3 Filed 12/28/10 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\DMS\10cv2569 dismiss.wpd, 122810 -2-

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 “Susan L. Hubbard,” 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). 

VENUE

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 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of San

Diego County California, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Petitioner is presently confined

at Correctional Training Facility, located in Monterey County, which is within the jurisdictional

Case 3:10-cv-02569-DMS-WMC Document 3 Filed 12/28/10 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\DMS\10cv2569 dismiss.wpd, 122810 -3-

boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 84(a). In the present Petition, Petitioner is challenging the decision of a board of

parole hearing he suffered in February 4, 2009 but does not specify where the hearing occurred.

(Pet. at 21.) Thus, it is currently unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction in this matter.

Petitioner must tell the Court where he suffered the conviction which he seeks to challenge in

this matter.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner’s

failure to either pay the $5 filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and

for his failure to name a proper respondent, and demonstrate venue is proper in this Court. To

have this case reopened, no later than February 22, 2011, a copy of this Order with the $5.00

fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee AND a First Amended Petition which

cures the pleading deficiencies noted above. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner

a blank Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application and First Amended

Petition form along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02569-DMS-WMC Document 3 Filed 12/28/10 Page 3 of 3