Marquez v. San Diego Superior Court
3:13-cv-02355
S.D. Cal.Oct 7, 2013Background
- Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Southern District of California challenging custody status.
- The petition named San Diego Superior Court as Respondent, rather than the custodian with official custody.
- Ninth Circuit rules require naming the warden or the Director of Corrections as respondent when challenging state custody.
- A long-standing Ninth Circuit rule holds the custodian must be the respondent because the writ operates on the custodian who can produce the petitioner.
- The petition was not submitted on a court-approved form as required by local rules.
- The court granted in forma pauperis status but dismissed the petition without prejudice for multiple defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper respondent name | Petitioner named San Diego Superior Court. | Respondent must be the custodian with official custody (warden/Director). | Petition improperly named respondent; must name custodian. |
| Compliance with local form | Not stated separately; petition filed as pleaded. | Petition not on court-approved form per Local Rules. | Petition not on court-approved form; defect. |
| Affirmative dismissal without prejudice | Unknown or not stated. | Defects justify dismissal without prejudice to refile properly. | Petition dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 1996) (custodian rule; proper respondent is the state officer having custody)
- Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992) (proper defendant in habeas action is custodian)
- Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (writ operates on custodian who can produce the prisoner)