Opinion
Civil No. 05cv1829-DMS(LSP).
September 28, 2005
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis.
FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than November 28, 2005, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee.
For Petitioner's convenience, a blank motion to proceed in forma pauperis is attached to this Order.
FAILURE TO SIGN PETITION
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that "[t]he petition must be printed, typewritten or legibly handwritten; and be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242." Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Here, Petitioner has failed to sign the Petition. The Court therefore DISMISSES the action without prejudice to refiling of a "First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," which is signed by Petitioner.FAILURE TO NAME PROPER RESPONDENT
Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). "Typically, that person is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated." Id. Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id.
The warden is the typical respondent. However, "the rules following section 2254 do not specify the warden." Id. "[T]he `state officer having custody' may be `either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions.'" Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee's note). If "a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is challenging, `[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of the petitioner (for example, the warden of the prison).'" Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory committee's note).
Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named "Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California," as Respondent. Bill Lockyer, the Attorney General of the State of California, is not a proper respondent in this action. Rule 2 of the Rules following § 2254 provides that the state officer having custody of the petitioner shall be named as respondent. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. However, "[i]f the petitioner is not yet in custody — but may be subject to future custody — under the state-court judgment being contested, the petition must name as respondents both the officer who has current custody and the attorney general of the state where the judgement was entered." Rule 2 (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, there is no basis for Petitioner to have named the Attorney General as a respondent in this action.
In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name as respondent the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of Corrections. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to Petitioner's failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to sign the Petition and failure to name a proper respondent. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must submit, no later than November 28, 2005, a copy of this Order with the $5.00 fee or with adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee and a First Amended Petition which cures the defects identified in this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.