Camunas v. People

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 3/8/2017.(Blank Southern District of California amended petition form sent to Petitioner along with a copy of this order) (Certified Copy to USM) (fth)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MIGUEL V. CAMUNAS, Case No.: 16cv2866-AJB (AGS) Petitioner, 11 12 13 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. PEOPLE, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 16 On November 22, 2016, Petitioner, a state probationer proceeding pro se, filed a 17 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a motion to 18 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) On January 4, 2017, the Court granted 19 Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the Petition with leave to 20 amend because Petitioner had failed to allege exhaustion of his state court remedies and 21 had failed to name a proper Respondent. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner has now filed a First 22 Amended Petition. (ECF No. 4.) The First Amended Petition is subject to dismissal 23 because, although Petitioner has now alleged exhaustion of his state court remedies, he has 24 once again failed to name a proper Respondent. 25 As Petitioner was notified in this Court’s January 4, 2017 Order of dismissal, he 26 must name the state officer having custody of him as Respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. 27 Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996), citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Federal 28 courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. 1 16cv2866-AJB (AGS) 1 Id. In his original Petition, Petitioner named “People” as Respondent, and he was informed 2 in this Court’s previous Order of dismissal that “People” was an improper respondent 3 because to the extent he refers to the People of the State of California he was instructed 4 that a long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ 5 of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in 6 custody. 7 respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement 8 exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the 9 person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 10 Petitioner was instructed that if a “petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name 11 his probation or parole officer ‘and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency, 12 or the state correctional agency, as appropriate.’” Id., quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. 13 § 2254 advisory committee’s note. In some cases, a petitioner may name the state attorney 14 general. Id. 15 In the First Amended Petition, Petitioner has once again incorrectly named “People” 16 as Respondent. In order for this Court to entertain a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 17 Petitioner must name the person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the 18 Court. Because Petitioner is on probation, the proper respondents are his probation officer 19 and the official in charge of the probation agency. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894. 20 The Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice due to Petitioner’s failure to 21 name a proper Respondent. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, 22 no later than May 15, 2017, a Second Amended Petition which names a proper 23 Respondent. The Clerk of Court shall send a blank Southern District of California amended 24 petition form to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2017 27 28 2 16cv2866-AJB (AGS)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?