Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01107/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01107-0/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 FILED

If JUN 20 PH 12= 19 2

3

4

DEPUtY 5

•:«V

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 MARTIN MANZO ORTEGA, Case No.: BEN (JLB)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 JUDGE TIMOTHY R. WALSH,

15 Respondent.

16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ ofHabeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Petition is subject to dismissal because

Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, has failed to use a court-approved

petition form, and has failed to name a proper Respondent.

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

17

18

19

20

21

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. foil. § 2254.

FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

Additionally, a Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance

with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

l

BEN (JLB)

17cv1107 -

17cv1107 -

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
/

California. See Rule 2(d), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 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. Id; S. D. CAL. CivLR HC.2(b). Presently, Petitioner

has not submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on a court-approved form.

FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

1j/

2

3

4

5

6 Review ofthe 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. foil. § 2254). “Typically, that person is the warden ofthe facility in which

the petitioner is incarcerated.” Id 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 ofthe institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated ... or the chief officer in

charge ofstate penal institutions.’” Id (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foil. § 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 ofthe petitioner

(for example, the warden of the prison).”’ Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foil. § 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.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 III

2

BEN (JLB) 17cv1107 - 

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
A

Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “Judge Timothy R. Walsh” as Respondent.

In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the

warden in charge ofthe state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined

or the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Brittingham v. United States. 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to

Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to use a court-approved

petition form, and failure to name a proper respondent. IfPetitioner wishes to proceed with

this case, he must submit, no later than August 14. 2017. a copy ofthis Order with the

$5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and file a First Amended

Petition which cures the defects identified above. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank

Southern District of California In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank Southern

District ofCalifornia amended petition form to Petitioner along with a copy ofthis Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. //

1

■'{

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

'fi- 16 Dated: June , 2017

United States District Judge

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

BEN (JLB) 17cv1107 -

Case 3:17-cv-01107-BEN-JLB Document 3 Filed 06/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3