Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROGER TEDI EDWARDS, Case No.: 26-cv-1245-BJC-VET 11 Petitioner, ORDER: 12 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 13 CDCR, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 14 Respondents. [ECF No. 2] AND 15 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE 17 18 Petitioner Roger Tedi Edwards (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 19 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2024 20 San Diego County Superior Court judgment of conviction, accompanied by a motion for 21 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) 22 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 23 Upon review, Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional 24 institution in which he is presently confined (see ECF No. 2 at 5, 7), and he cannot afford 25 the $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 26 forma pauperis and allows him to prosecute the above-referenced action without being 27 required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of 28 Court will file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 1 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 2 Petitioner fails to name the state officer having custody of him as respondent. Ortiz- 3 Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996), citing R. 2(a), Rules Governing 4 Section 2254 Cases (2019). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas 5 petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. 6 The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 7 do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the 8 warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in 9 charge of state penal institutions.’” Id., quoting R. 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 10 Cases (2019), advisory committee’s note. Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “CDCR” 11 and “State of California” as Respondents. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) In order for this Court to 12 entertain the Petition, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the state correctional 13 facility in which he is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of 14 Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 15 1992) (per curiam); see also Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968) (“The 16 actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.”) Thus, the 17 Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to name a proper Respondent. 18 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF 20 No. 2] and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper 21 Respondent.1 If Petitioner wishes to re-open and proceed with this habeas action, he must 22 23 1 The Court also notes Petitioner alleges exhaustion as to seven of his eight enumerated 24 claims (Claims 1-7, see ECF No. 1 at 6-12), but because his eighth claim appears to allege 25 errors by the California Supreme Court in the state court post-conviction process (see id. at 13), it appears unnecessary to sua sponte make a preliminary determination as to 26 exhaustion. See Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) “[A] 27 petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable through habeas corpus proceedings.”); see also Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045 28 1 submit, no later than May 1, 2026, a copy of this Order along with a completed Amended 2 || Petition form that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in the instant Order. The Clerk 3 || of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Amended Habeas Petition 4 || form together with a copy of this Order. 5 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: March 3, 2026 Ape Oh n/- 7 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 process, reasoning “errors concerning such a process are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings.”’), citing Franzen, 877 F.2d at 26; see also Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 27 || 1197-98 (“When a state prisoner has failed to allege a deprivation of a federal right, § 2254 does not apply and it is unnecessary for us to determine whether the prisoner satisfied the § 2254(b) exhaustion requirement.”), citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 120 n. 19 (1982).