Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02206/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02206-0/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

19cv2206 CAB (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH RUSSELL LUCKETT

Petitioner,

v.

SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR COURT, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv2206 CAB (MDD)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

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 either pay the $5.00 filing fee or move to proceed in forma 

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

or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

FAILURE TO NAME THE 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 3:19-cv-02206-CAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv2206 CAB (MDD)

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

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 “San Diego Superior Court” 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).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice 

and with leave to amend. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than 

February 27, 2020: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit adequate proof of his inability to 

pay the fee; and (2) file a First Amended Petition that cures the pleading deficiencies 

outlined in this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a blank In Forma 

Case 3:19-cv-02206-CAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv2206 CAB (MDD)

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

Pauperis Application and a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 First Amended Petition form to 

Petitioner together with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-02206-CAB-MDD Document 3 Filed 12/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3