Gilbert v. California Department of CDCR
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The 3 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 4 Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has f
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the denial of parole and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the request to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent, granting leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting application to proceed in forma pauperis“Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner has $0.19 in his trust account and cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner may proceed in forma pauperis if they cannot afford the filing fee. The facts stated in the order support the grant. |
Dismissing petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper respondent“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that a state prisoner must name the custodian (warden or Secretary of Corrections) as the respondent in a § 2254 habeas petition. The petitioner named the 'California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,' which is an agency, not the specific custodian. The court cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Ortiz-Sandoval, Ashley, Brittingham) establishing that the actual custodian must be named. Dismissing without prejudice and allowing leave to amend is the standard procedural remedy for this defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-established Ninth Circuit rule that a habeas petition must name the custodian. It accurately distinguishes the agency from the individual officers who hold custody. The remedy of dismissal without prejudice with leave to amend is appropriate for a pro se prisoner who has failed to name the correct party. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES TRAYZON GILBERT, Case No.: 21-CV-859-JLS-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: (1) GRANTING 13 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT (2) DISMISSING PETITION OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REHABILITATION, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 16 Respondent. 17 (ECF Nos. 1, 2) 18 19 Petitioner Charles Trayzon Gilbert, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted 20 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial 21 of parole. See ECF No. 1. He has also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See 22 ECF No. 2. 23 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 24 According to Petitioner’s trust account statement, Petitioner has $0.19 on account at 25 the California correctional institution in which he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot 26 afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed 27 in forma pauperis and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action without 28 being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The 1 Clerk of the Court SHALL FILE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without 2 prepayment of the filing fee. 3 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 4 Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. 5 On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him as 6 the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 7 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas 8 petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. 9 The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 10 do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the 11 warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in 12 charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory 13 committee’s note). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is challenging, 14 ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of the petitioner 15 (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 16 advisory committee’s note). 17 A longstanding rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ 18 of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in 19 custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 20 respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement 21 exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the 22 person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden 23 of a California prison and the [Secretary] of Corrections for California have the power to 24 produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895. 25 Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “California Department of Corrections and 26 Rehabilitation” as Respondent. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this 27 action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which 28 Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary of the California Department of 1 || Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 2 ||1992) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT 3 || PREJUDICE. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma 6 ||pauperis (ECF No. 2) and DISMISSES the Petition (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT 7 || PREJUDICE because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. To have this case 8 reopened, Petitioner must, no later July 6, 2021, file a First Amended Petition that names 9 ||a proper respondent. A blank First Amended Petition is included with this Order for 10 || Petitioner’s convenience. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: May 5, 2021 . tt f te 13 on. Janis L. Sammartino 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28