Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00409/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00409-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL GALLARDO, Civil

No.

16cv0409-DMS (MDD)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

DISMISSING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

Respondent.

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

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in

forma pauperis. Although the Court grants Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

the Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to name a proper

respondent.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has no funds on account at the California correctional institution in

which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the

Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and allows

Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action as a poor person without being

required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. 

/ / / 

C:\Users\gregh\AppData\Local\Temp\notes294223\~9054072.wpd, 22216 -1- 16cv0409

Case 3:16-cv-00409-DMS-MDD Document 4 Filed 02/22/16 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

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). “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 isthe 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.

Petitioner has incorrectly named “United States District 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 and Rehabilitation. 

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

C:\Users\gregh\AppData\Local\Temp\notes294223\~9054072.wpd, 22216 -2- 16cv0409

Case 3:16-cv-00409-DMS-MDD Document 4 Filed 02/22/16 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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice for failure to name a

proper Respondent. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must, no later than April

20, 2016, file a First Amended Petition which names a proper respondent. The Clerk of

Court is directed to mail Petitioner a blank Southern District ofCalifornia First Amended

Petition form together with a copy of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2016 _________________________________________

Dana M. Sabraw

United States District Judge

Copies to: ALL PARTIES

C:\Users\gregh\AppData\Local\Temp\notes294223\~9054072.wpd, 22216 -3- 16cv0409

Case 3:16-cv-00409-DMS-MDD Document 4 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 3