King v. California
Filing
2
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION without Prejudice and with Leave to Amend. In order to have his case reopened, Petitioner must (1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay, and (2) file a First Amended Petition which names a proper respondent, no later than 11/13/2022. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 9/16/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service and Petitioner mailed a blank First Amended Petition form and a blank In Forma Pauperis Application.) (tcf)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
SIMON J. KING,
CDCR #AC2494,
Case No.: 22-cv-1397-MMA (BLM)
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
Petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA,
[Doc. No. 1]
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Simon J. King (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). See Doc No. 1.
I. FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved to proceed in forma
22
pauperis (“IFP”). This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the filing fee
23
or qualified to proceed IFP. The Court therefore DISMISSES the case without
24
prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this
25
case, he must, no later than November 13, 2022, either pay the $5.00 fee or submit
26
adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee.
27
28
II.
FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT
Review of the Petition also reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper
-1-
22-cv-1397-MMA (BLM)
1
respondent. On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having
2
custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.
3
1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction
4
when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.
5
The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254
6
do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the
7
warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in
8
charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254
9
advisory committee’s note). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is
10
challenging, ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of
11
the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C.
12
foll. § 2254 advisory committee’s note).
13
A long-standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a
14
writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is
15
in custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the
16
respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement
17
exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the
18
person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden
19
of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to
20
produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895.
21
Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named the state of California as Respondent. In
22
order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the
23
warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently
24
confined or the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
25
Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
26
27
28
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice and
with leave to amend because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement and
-2-
22-cv-1397-MMA (BLM)
1
failed to name a proper respondent. In order to have his case reopened, Petitioner must
2
(1) either pay the filing fee or provide adequate proof of his inability to pay, and (2) file a
3
First Amended Petition which names a proper respondent, no later than November 13,
4
2022. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send Petitioner, along with this Order,
5
a blank First Amended Petition form and a blank In Forma Pauperis Application.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2022
8
_____________________________
9
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
22-cv-1397-MMA (BLM)
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?