Gregory Vanhuisen v. Richard J. Donovan and Todd Blanche
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court denied the motion to proceed IFP and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to name the proper respondent and failure to satisfy filing fee requirements, granting the petitioner 45 days to cure the defects.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner failed to attach the required prison certificate showing his financial status, which is a mandatory requirement under the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and local rules. The denial is a procedural prerequisite to the court's ability to assess indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. |
Dismissal of action without prejudice“Thus, the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that a habeas petition must name the immediate custodian as the respondent to establish personal jurisdiction. The petitioner named a facility and the U.S. Attorney General, but not the specific officer holding him in custody. Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for this curable defect. |
Grant of time to cure defects“GRANTS Petitioner 45 days to either (a) pay the $5.00 filing fee or (b) complete and file a properly supported motion to proceed IFP” | agree with court The court provides a specific deadline and instructions for curing the procedural deficiencies (filing fee and IFP certification) before closing the case. This is consistent with the court's authority to manage its docket and provide notice of requirements. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the jurisdictional requirement for naming the immediate custodian in a § 2254 petition, citing binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority. It also correctly enforces the local rule and statutory requirement for a prison trust account statement for IFP motions. The dismissal without prejudice allows the petitioner to cure the defects, which is the appropriate procedural outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY VANHUISEN, Case No.: 3:26-cv-3292-CAB-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO 14 RICHARD J. DONOVAN and TODD PROCEED IFP; and BLANCHE, 15 Respondents. (2) DISMISSING ACTION 16 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 18 [Doc. No. 2] 19 20 Before the Court is Petitioner Gregory Vanhuisen’s motion for leave to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”), [Doc. No. 2], filed in connection with a petition for a writ of habeas 22 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] For the reasons discussed 23 below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP and DISMISSES the action 24 without prejudice. 25 I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP 26 a. Failure to Satisfy Filing Fee Requirement 27 A request to proceed IFP made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from 28 the warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities 1 Petitioner has on account in the institution. R. 3(a)(2), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in 2 the U.S. Dist. Cts., 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2. Here, Petitioner has not 3 attached a copy of a prison certificate to his motion and has not provided the Court with 4 sufficient information to determine his financial status. [See Doc. No. 2.] Accordingly, 5 the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP. 6 b. Failure to Name Proper Respondent 7 To file a habeas petition, the petitioner must name the state officer having custody 8 of him as respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 9 R. 2(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the U.S. Dist. Cts., 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 10 Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper 11 respondent. Id. This requirement exists because “the writ of habeas corpus does not act 12 upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged 13 to be unlawful custody.” Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494–495 14 (1973) (citing Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885)). 15 Petitioner names as Respondents the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, the 16 facility where Petitioner is presently confined, and Todd Blanche, the Acting Attorney 17 General of the United States. [Petition at 1.] However, Petitioner’s immediate custodian 18 is not named as a respondent. See id. Thus, the Court DISMISSES the action without 19 prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent. 20 II. CONCLUSION 21 Accordingly, the Court: 22 (1) DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed IFP without prejudice; 23 (2) DISMISSES this action without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee 24 requirement and failure to name a proper respondent; and 25 (3) GRANTS Petitioner 45 days to either (a) pay the $5.00 filing fee or (b) 26 complete and file a properly supported motion to proceed IFP which includes a certified 27 copy of his prison trust account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of 28 his Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b). If Petitioner fails to 1 |/either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a properly supported motion to proceed IFP by 2 September 10, 2026, the Clerk of Court shall close the case without further order from the 3 || Court. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > Dated: July 27, 2026 7 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28