Anderson v. Foster
3:11-cv-00661
S.D. Cal.Apr 26, 2011Background
- Petitioner Cornelius Anderson, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in March 2011.
- The petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of California and the court granted in forma pauperis status.
- The court previously dismissed the petition without prejudice and with leave to amend for failure to name a proper Respondent and lack of a cognizable federal claim.
- Anderson again named several Judges as Respondents in his First Amended Petition, not a proper state-custodian respondent under § 2254.
- The court explained that the proper Respondent must be the warden or the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, i.e., the custodian of Anderson’s custody.
- The court found Anderson did not allege that he is in federal custody in violation of the United States Constitution or federal law, so no cognizable § 2254 claim was stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition named a proper respondent | Anderson asserts federal habeas viability despite Respondent misnaming. | Respondents argue the named Judges are not the custodian required by § 2254. | Petition dismissed for failure to name a proper Respondent. |
| Whether the petition states a cognizable federal habeas claim | Anderson claims constitutional violations relating to property and transfer procedures. | Allegations do not show custody in violation of federal Constitution or laws. | Petition dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. |
| Whether the petition should be dismissed with or without prejudice | N/A | N/A | Petition dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. |
| Whether Anderson should pursue a § 1983 civil rights action instead | N/A | N/A | Court advised filing a separate civil rights complaint if appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996) (identifies proper custodian for habeas petitions)
- Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992) (custodian rules for habeas petitions)
- Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (requires federal question or custody violation for § 2254 claim)
- Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas claims must be cognizable under federal law)
- Hernandez v. Ylst, 930 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1991) (constructs standard for § 2254 review)
- Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576 (9th Cir. 1988) (limits federal habeas scope to violations of federal law)
- Kealohapauole v. Shimoda, 800 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir. 1986) (explains § 2254(a) scope and custody requirement)