Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02626/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02626-3/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\09cv2626 dismiss TAP.wpd, 63010 -1- 09cv2626

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN O’HINES, Civil No. 09-2626 WQH (AJB)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING THIRD

AMENDED PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

ONTIVEROS, et al., 

Respondents.

On November 18, 2009, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se submitted a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was dismissed without

prejudice and with leave to amend on December 1, 2009 because petitioner had failed to satisfy

the filing fee requirement, it was unclear whether this Court was the proper venue and Petitioner

had failed to name a proper respondent. (See Order dated Dec. 1, 2009 [doc. no. 2].) Petitioner

was given until January 21, 2010 to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of

his inability to pay the fee and submit a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading

deficiencies outlined in the dismissal order. 

On January 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition and a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis. (See Doc. No. 4.) Also on January 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a document

entitled “Notice of Appeal,” which the Court construed as an exhibit to the First Amended

Petition, and which cited various federal statutes. (See Doc. No. 8.) Although it is difficult to

decipher, Petitioner appeared to complain about the conduct of various prison officials 

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 5
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\09cv2626 dismiss TAP.wpd, 63010 -2- 09cv2626

On February 4, 2010, the Court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis but

dismissed the case without prejudice and with leave to amend because Petitioner had failed to

name a proper respondent and had failed to state a cognizable federal claim. (See Order dated

Feb. 4, 2010 [doc. no 6].) Petitioner was given until April 6, 2010 to file a Second Amended

Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies outlined in the Court’s order. (Id.) 

On March 17, 2010, Petitioner filed a document entitled “Attachment/Supplement to 2nd

Amended Petition (Dejure) of Right.” (See Doc. No. 10.) On April. 7, 2010, Petitioner filed a

document entitled “Notice; Second Amended Filed on Date of 2-25-10,” (see Doc. No. 13),

which the Court construed as Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition. On April 12, 2010, the

Court dismissed the Second Amended Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend

because Petitioner had failed to name a proper respondent, state a cognizable federal claim,

allege exhaustion of state judicial remedies, state that venue is proper in this Court, and use a

court approved form. (See Order dated Apr. 12, 2010 [doc. no. 14].) Petitioner was given until

June 1, 2010 to file a Third Amended Petition which cured the pleading deficiencies noted in the

Court’s order. (Id.) On June 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a Third Amended Petition. 

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has again 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).

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 5
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\09cv2626 dismiss TAP.wpd, 63010 -3- 09cv2626

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 “Ontiveros Ombudsman, Cottier Associate

Warden” as Respondents. 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 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). 

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/30/10 Page 3 of 5
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\09cv2626 dismiss TAP.wpd, 63010 -4- 09cv2626

The Petition is difficult to decipher, but Petitioner appears to complain about the Anti

Drug Abuse Act, medical malpractice, parole violation procedures, and extradition waiver issues.

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. While courts should liberally interpret pro se

pleadings with leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the

entire onus of ferreting out grounds for relief. Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir.

2001). This Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to attempt to identify and

make sense of the Petition. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real

possibility of constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail

to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus

review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, the

allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate

objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, the

lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondents from being able to assert

appropriate objections and defenses.

VENUE

Moreover, it is again unclear whether this Court is the proper venue for Petitioner’s

action. 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 is presently confined in Arizona State Prison

in Florence, Arizona. Petitioner states that he is challenging a conviction that occurred in San

Luis Obispo but also that he is challenging a sentence received at R. J. Donovan State Prison.

(TAP at 1.) Therefore, it is unclear whether this Court has jurisdiction over the case. 

//

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 5
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\09cv2626 dismiss TAP.wpd, 63010 -5- 09cv2626

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Petitioner was advised in the preceding dismissal Order that if he filed a Third Amended

Petition which failed to cure the deficiencies in his petition, he would be given no further

opportunities to amend the present case, but would have to begin again by filing a new federal

habeas petition which will be given a new civil case number. Accordingly, and for all the

foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice and without leave to

amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2010

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02626-WQH-AJB Document 16 Filed 06/30/10 Page 5 of 5