Barton v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 22, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-01038
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM BARTON, Case No.: 3:22-cv-1038-MMA (DEB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 William Barton (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 18 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). Doc. No. 1. 19 FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT 20 Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved to proceed in forma 21 pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the filing fee or 22 qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court therefore DISMISSES the case without 23 prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this 24 case, he must, no later than September 22, 2022, either pay the $5.00 fee or submit 25 adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. 26 FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 27 Review of the Petition reveals that Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent. 28 On federal habeas, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him as 1 the respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas 3 petition fails to name a proper respondent. See id. 4 The warden is the typical respondent. However, “the rules following section 2254 5 do not specify the warden.” Id. “[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the 6 warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in 7 charge of state penal institutions.’” Id. (quoting Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 advisory 8 committee’s note). If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state action he is challenging, 9 ‘[t]he named respondent shall be the state officer who has official custody of the petitioner 10 (for example, the warden of the prison).’” Id. (quoting Rule 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 11 advisory committee’s note). 12 A long-standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a 13 writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in 14 custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the 15 respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement 16 exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the 17 person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden 18 of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to 19 produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895. 20 Here, Petitioner has failed to name any Respondent. In order for this Court to 21 entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the 22 state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Secretary of the 23 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 24 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). 25 FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF 26 In addition, the Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to raise any 27 grounds for relief or supporting facts. See Doc. No. 1 at 6–9. Rule 2(c) of the Rules 28 Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the petition “shall set forth in summary form the 1 facts supporting each of the grounds . . . specified [in the petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. 2 foll. § 2254; see also Boehme v. Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s 3 dismissal of federal habeas proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory 4 allegations instead of factual allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, 5 Petitioner has violated Rule 2(c). While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings 6 with leniency and understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire 7 onus of ferreting out grounds for relief. Cf. Burkey v. Deeds, 824 F. Supp. 190, 193 (D. 8 Nev. 1993) (finding that courts do not have entire onus of creating federal claim for 9 petitioner). The Court finds that the Petition contains no grounds for habeas relief and no 10 factual allegations. See Doc. No. 1 at 6–9. 11 In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of 12 constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal 13 quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to 14 enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus 15 review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). Moreover, 16 the allegations should be sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert appropriate 17 objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739 F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). Here, 18 the lack of grounds for relief in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to 19 assert appropriate objections and defenses. 20 Due to Petitioner’s unsatisfactory showing, the Court dismisses the action without 21 prejudice. Should Petitioner decide to file an amended petition, he is advised to clearly 22 and succinctly state all grounds for relief using the Amended Petition form sent to 23 Petitioner with this order. 24 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 25 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice due to 26 Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing fee, failure to name a proper respondent, and failure 27 to state grounds for relief. To have this case reopened, Petitioner must file a First Amended 28 Petition, no later than September 22, 2022, which cures the deficiencies outlined in this 1 ||}Order. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a blank Southern District of 2 || California In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank Amended Petition form to Petitioner 3 || along with a copy of this Order. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: July 22, 2022 6 Mbihul MU lolbe □□ 5 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO g United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28