Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mimms v. State

United States District Court, S.D. California

November 8, 2017

JARED BENJAMIN MIMMS, Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          CYNTHIA BASHANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner, a person incarcerated in the San Diego City Jail and proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that “the State of California is still practicing Eugenics” on him and “is trying to pay hot men poor in civil law using the Church of Christian Science, ” that “its people are voting for Petitioner's death based on height, weight and face criteria only, ” that he is “rich in civil law with the highest intelligence in on Earth, ” and the Judge and Deputy District Attorney in the state court “have directly lied. Deals are offered only on height, weight and face. Kill them now on treason one felony.”[1] (Id. at 1.)

         The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failed to use a court-approved petition form, failed to name a proper respondent, failed to state a cognizable claim, and failed to allege exhaustion of state court remedies.

         I. FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

         Petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the 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.

         II. 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).

         A long standing rule in the Ninth Circuit holds “that a petitioner may not seek [a writ of] habeas corpus against the State under . . . [whose] authority . . . the petitioner is in custody. The actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). This requirement exists because a writ of habeas corpus acts upon the custodian of the state prisoner, the person who will produce “the body” if directed to do so by the Court. “Both the warden of a California prison and the Director of Corrections for California have the power to produce the prisoner.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895.

         Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “The State of California” as Respondent. In order for this Court to entertain the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the state correctional facility in which Petitioner is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

         III. FAILURE TO USE PROPER FORM

         A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus must be submitted in accordance with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See Rule 2(d), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to comply with the Local Rules, the petition must be submitted upon a court-approved form and in accordance with the instructions approved by the Court. Id.; Civ. L. R. HC. 2(b). Presently, Petitioner has not submitted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on a court-approved form.

         IV. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE FEDERAL CLAIM

         Additionally, in accordance with Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases, Petitioner has failed to allege that his state court conviction or sentence violates the Constitution of the United States. Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.