Fink
Fink v. State of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID FINK, Case No.: 21-cv-969-MMA (RBM)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Petitioner, WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH v. LEAVE TO AMEND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
16 Respondent.
18 On May 21, 2021, David Fink (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the $5.00 filing fee. I. FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT A 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. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). 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. …