Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01960/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01960-0/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:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\07cv1960 dismiss no ifp no $5.wpd, 10177 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID PRINGLE, Civil No. 07cv1960 LAB (POR)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE [Doc. No. 1];

and

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 2]

v.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al

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. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01960-LAB-POR Document 3 Filed 10/17/07 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:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\07cv1960 dismiss no ifp no $5.wpd, 10177 -2-

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

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 “D.L. Runnels,” 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). 

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-01960-LAB-POR Document 3 Filed 10/17/07 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:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\07cv1960 dismiss no ifp no $5.wpd, 10177 -3-

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

failure to (1) pay the $5 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) name a proper

respondent. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than

December 11, 2007, 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

outlined in this Order. In light of the above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for an

Evidentiary Hearing as moot. [Doc. No. 2.]

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank Southern District of California In

Forma Pauperis Application and First Amended Petition form to Petitioner along with a

copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01960-LAB-POR Document 3 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 3