Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02264/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02264-0/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

1

“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him

or her as the respondent to the petition. This person typically is the warden of the facility in which

the petitioner is incarcerated. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992).”

Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C.

foll. § 2254). Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of

personal jurisdiction. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). In the instant action,

petitioner has named the California Department of Corrections (now the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation) as respondents. However the CDC (or CDCR) is not the proper

respondent in this action where petitioner seeks, inter alia, restoration of time credits resulting from

prison disciplinary actions at Correctional Training Facility at Soledad (CTF). Petitioner is

cautioned that in any future filing to name the proper respondent, the warden of CTF.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY LEE HICKS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2264 DFL GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

1

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma

Case 2:06-cv-02264-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
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 The court regrets that this petition was not transferred in a more timely manner.

2

2

pauperis. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. 2

Petitioner is incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad (CTF)

and challenges prison disciplinary actions that took place at that facility located in Monterey

County. Monterey County is in an area embraced by the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(b), courts “may transfer the application for hearing

and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to entertain it.” Because petitioner

challenges disciplinary actions for which he was not convicted at a prison facility in this district,

and he is not presently confined here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the

application.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

DATED: 4/4/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hick2264.108b

Case 2:06-cv-02264-DFL-GGH Document 5 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2