Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00873/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00873-0/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\07cv0873-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 837 -1- 07cv0873

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LYNN HINES, Civil No. 07cv0873-IEG (JMA)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al.,

Respondents.

On May 14, 2007, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and failed

to move to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 22, 2007, the Court dismissed this action without

prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement. Petitioner was

instructed to either pay the filing fee or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis on or

before July 23, 2007.

On July 9, 2007, and again on July 12, 2007, Petitioner filed copies of his inmate trust

account statement, and on July 27, 2007, filed a document titled: “Response to the Order

Dismissing Case with Proof of Inability to Pay $5.00.” (See Doc. Nos. 7-8, 14.) The Court will

construe these filings as a request to proceed in forma pauperis. A review of the filings reveal

that Petitioner has insufficient funds on account at the correctional institution in which he is

presently confined, and cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Case 3:07-cv-00873-IEG-JMA Document 15 Filed 08/03/07 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\IEG\07cv0873-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 837 -2- 07cv0873

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the

above-referenced action as a poor person without being required to prepay fees or costs and

without being required to post security. 

Petitioner has also filed a Motion for relief under “rules 12.7, 20, 40 and 41b,” and a

Supplemental Civil Rights Complaint, in which Petitioner attempts to present claims relating to

the conditions of his incarceration. (Doc. Nos. 10, 12.) The Petition itself contains claims

challenging both Petitioner’s state criminal conviction as well as the conditions of his

confinement. (See Pet. at 5-8.) Although Petitioner names a great variety of persons and entities

as Respondents to this action, Petitioner has not named a proper Respondent for a habeas action.

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). “Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which the

petitioner is incarcerated.” Id. 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). 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 several Respondents, including “The State of

California”, “Atascadero State Hospital,” “Conrep Agencies,” “Southpoint,” “Nelson-Haven

Board and Care Home,” “San Diego County Courts,” “Judge Jesus Rodriguez Raymond

Edwards,” “Jeff Bianco,” and “Jane Shell, Conrep Director.” (Pet. at 1.) Petitioner is currently

Case 3:07-cv-00873-IEG-JMA Document 15 Filed 08/03/07 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\IEG\07cv0873-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 837 -3- 07cv0873

confined at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona. In order for this Court to

entertain a Petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner must name as Respondent his

immediate custodian. Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895; see also Brittingham v. United States, 982

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). None of the persons or entities named as respondents by

Petitioner are Petitioner’s immediate custodian. Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when

a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a

habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . .” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas

relief because he has failed to name a proper respondent. 

Furthermore, it is unclear from the face of the Petition whether Petitioner intended to

proceed in this action with a habeas petition or seeks to bring a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, or both. In order to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

Petitioner 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). However, if Petitioner seeks to present claims challenging the

conditions of his confinement but is not seeking to be released from custody, a habeas petition

is not the proper vehicle for such claims. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are

properly brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for state

prisoners; challenges to conditions of confinement which will not result in immediate or speedier

release from custody are properly brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-500 (1973). When a state prisoner is challenging

the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination

that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole

federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a section 1983 action

is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions

of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United

Case 3:07-cv-00873-IEG-JMA Document 15 Filed 08/03/07 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\IEG\07cv0873-Grant&Dismiss.wpd, 837 -4- 07cv0873

States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

Although claims one through three in the Petition present claims regarding the validity

of Petitioner’s guilty plea in the San Diego County Superior Court, South Bay Division, claim

four in the Petition, and the allegations in the supplemental documents filed by Petitioner in this

action, relate to Petitioner’s conditions of confinement. If Petitioner wishes to invoke this

Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he must allege that he is in custody pursuant to a

state court judgment, indicate that he intends to challenge the constitutional validity or duration

of present confinement, and name a proper respondent. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser, 411 U.S.

at 500. However, if Petitioner is presenting a challenge to the conditions of his confinement and

is not seeking immediate or speedier release, he must file a separate civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a separate civil case number.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the forgoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent, and

DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s Motion for relief [Doc. No. 10] as moot. Petitioner is

granted leave to file a First Amended Petition on or before September 17, 2007, presenting

claims challenging his state court criminal conviction in which he names a proper respondent.

Petitioner may also file a separate civil rights complaint, which will be given a separate civil

case number, in which he presents claims relating to the conditions of his confinement, if he

wishes. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank Southern District of California

amended petition form and a blank Southern District of California civil rights complaint form

along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2007

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00873-IEG-JMA Document 15 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 4