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.

Gilbert v. Bernardino

United States District Court, S.D. California

October 31, 2019

CHAKA D. GILBERT, Petitioner,
v.
SAN BERNARDINO and COALINGA, Respondents.

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge

         Petitioner, a person detained at the California Department of State Hospitals, Coalinga, is proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, failure to name a respondent, failure to sign the Petition, and failure to state a cognizable habeas claim.

         FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

         Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

         FAILURE TO NAME 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 “San Bernardino” and “Coalinga” as respondents.

         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. Here, Petitioner has failed to sign the Petition.

         FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS

         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), sets forth the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims:

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in ...

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.