Rodgers v. Hill
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — In order to conform with the 27 requirements of Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and to avoid 28 changing the Respondent if Petitioner is transferred again, the Cou
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus after the petitioner was transferred to a new facility. The court ordered the substitution of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as the sole respondent, removing the former warden and the State of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Substitution of Jeff Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as Respondent in place of Warden J. Hill and The People of the State of California.“The Court HEREBY ORDERS the substitution of Jeff Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as Respondent in place of “J. Hill” “The People of the State of California.”” | agree with court The decision follows the requirements of Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which mandates that the respondent be the person in actual custody. Substituting the Secretary of the Department of Corrections is a standard procedural mechanism in the Ninth Circuit to ensure the respondent remains the proper custodian even if the prisoner is transferred again, and it correctly excludes the State as a non-custodial entity. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the specific rules governing habeas corpus proceedings by identifying the proper respondent as the custodian. It relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent to justify substituting the Secretary of the Department of Corrections to avoid future procedural issues related to prisoner transfers and to correctly exclude the State of California as a respondent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILTON MELVIN RODGERS, Case No.: 24cv0837 JLS (BLM)
12 Petitioner, ORDER SUA SPONTE 13 v. SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENT 14 JEFF MACOMBER, Secretary, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On May 8, 2024, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, naming “J. Hill,” 19 the Warden of Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, where Petitioner was confined at 20 the time, along with “The People of the State of California,” as Respondents. (ECF No. 1 21 at 1.) On November 4, 2024, Petitioner notified the Court that he had been transferred to 22 the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran, California. (ECF 23 No. 8.) 24 A writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner. See 28 U.S.C. 25 § 2242; R. 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (2019). Because Petitioner’s place 26 of custody has changed, so has the Respondent to this action. In order to conform with the 27 requirements of Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and to avoid 28 changing the Respondent if Petitioner is transferred again, the Court hereby sua sponte 1 |}orders the substitution of Jeff Macomber, Secretary of the California Department of 2 ||Corrections and Rehabilitation, as Respondent in place of Warden J. Hill. See Ortiz- 3 || Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that the respondent in § 2254 4 || proceedings may be the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions). 5 In addition, The People of the State of California is not a proper respondent in this 6 |}action. A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a 7 || writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in 8 ||custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 9 ||respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement 10 |/exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the 11 || person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden 12 a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to 13 || produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895. 14 The Court HEREBY ORDERS the substitution of Jeff Macomber, Secretary of the 15 || California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as Respondent in place of “J. Hill” 16 “The People of the State of California.” The Clerk of the Court will modify the docket 17 || to reflect “Jeff Macomber, Secretary” in place of the former respondents. 18 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 ||Dated: 11/7/2024 29 United States Maaistrate Judae 23 24 25 26 27 28