Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01949/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01949-0/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

17cv1949-LAB (JLB)

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

MICHAEL HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv1949-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is subject to dismissal 

without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and

failed to name a proper respondent. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

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 

Case 3:17-cv-01949-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv1949-LAB (JLB)

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 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. 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 “People” 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 and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. 

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

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. 

Case 3:17-cv-01949-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv1949-LAB (JLB)

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

foll. § 2254. Here, it appears plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently entitled 

to federal habeas relief because he has not satisfied the filing fee requirement and has not 

named a proper respondent.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice 

because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent, and failed to allege exhaustion 

of state judicial remedies. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must submit, no later 

than November 30, 2017, a copy of this 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 pleading 

defects identified above. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of 

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

amended petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29,, 2017

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01949-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3