Dennis Roy Peterson v. Third Appellate District Court
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENNIS ROY PETERSON, No. 2:24-cv-03103-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
COURT,1
15 Respondent. 16
17 18 Petitioner is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. He has filed a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. In addition, he has requested leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. 21 Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. 22 Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 1 Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas petition fails to name a proper 24 respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). The proper respondent in federal habeas proceedings is one who “has the 25 power to order the petitioner’s release.” Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355, n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). 26 If “a petitioner is in custody due to the state…