Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher Hawkins, currently incarcerated at the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center and proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from the San Diego County Superior Court. The petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as Case No. 3:26-cv-05382-BJC-JLB (ECF No. 1).
In a three-page order dated November 6, 2026, the court identified three independent procedural defects in the petition. First, Hawkins had neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Second, he named the People of the State of California and California Attorney General Rob Bonta as respondents rather than the state officer having custody of him. Third, the petition was not submitted on the court-approved form required by the local rules of the district.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the case without prejudice. On the first ground, the court explained that it cannot proceed until the petitioner has either paid the filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, citing Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (2019). Because Hawkins did neither, the petition was subject to dismissal without prejudice.
On the second ground, the court held that federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent. Under Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, a state prisoner must name the state officer having custody of him—either the warden of the institution in which he is incarcerated or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions. Neither the People of the State of California nor the Attorney General qualifies; the court relied on Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996), Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992), and Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). The Attorney General would be a proper respondent only under Rule 2(b) where the petitioner is not yet in custody but may be subject to future custody, which was not the case here because Hawkins was already in custody.
On the third ground, the court found the petition was not on a court-approved form, as required by Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and S.D. Cal. CivLR HC.2(b). To proceed, Hawkins must submit, no later than January 2, 2026, both a completed petition form and either the $5.00 fee or adequate proof of his inability to pay; the Clerk of Court was directed to send him a blank In Forma Pauperis Application and a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Petition form together with a copy of the order.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis before the court can consider the petition, per Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
- A state prisoner must name as respondent the state officer having custody—the warden of the institution or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions—not the People of the State or the Attorney General when the petitioner is already in custody.
- The Attorney General is a proper respondent only when the petitioner is not yet in custody but may be subject to future custody under the contested state-court judgment, under Rule 2(b).
- Petitions must be submitted on the court-approved form and in accordance with the local rules of the district court.
- Dismissal for these procedural defects is without prejudice, allowing the petitioner to refile upon correcting the deficiencies by the stated deadline.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the strict procedural requirements governing federal habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court's application of Rule 2(a) and the Ninth Circuit's Ortiz-Sandoval line of authority reinforces that federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper respondent, and it confirms that neither a state itself nor its Attorney General satisfies that requirement for a petitioner already in custody.
The order also demonstrates the practical consequences of failing to comply with filing fee, in forma pauperis, and local form requirements. By dismissing without prejudice, setting a compliance deadline, and directing the Clerk to send blank forms, the court balances procedural enforcement with meaningful access to the courts for pro se incarcerated litigants.