Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00374/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00374-0/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\JAH\08cv0374 dismiss.wpd, 358 -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARROW HAYGOOD, Civil No. 08-0374 JAH (BLM)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

MIKE KNOWLES, 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 3:08-cv-00374-JAH-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/05/08 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\JAH\08cv0374 dismiss.wpd, 358 -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 “Mike Knowles,” as Respondent. Additionally,

Gerry Brown, the Attorney General of the State of California, is not a proper respondent in this

action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer having custody of

the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. However, “if the

applicant is not presently in custody pursuant to a state judgement against which he seeks relief

but may be subject to such custody in the future,” then “the officer having present custody of the

applicant as well as the attorney general of the state in which the judgment which he seeks to

attack was entered shall each be named as respondents.” Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as a respondent in this

action.

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

Case 3:08-cv-00374-JAH-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/05/08 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\JAH\08cv0374 dismiss.wpd, 358 -3-

F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with

the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be

submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the

Court. Presently, Petitioner has submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on a nonapproved form. The correct forms are available free of charge from the clerk of the court and

available upon request.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the above, 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, (2) name

a proper respondent, and (3) submit an application for writ of habeas corpus on a court-approved

form. 

If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, Petitioner must file a First Amended

Petition, along with a copy of this Order AND the $5.00 filing fee or adequate proof of his

inability to pay the fee, no later than April 29, 2008. 

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

Amended Petition form, and an In Forma Pauperis Application to Petitioner along with

a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 5, 2008

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00374-JAH-WVG Document 3 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 3