Edwards v. CDCR et al

1
26-cv-1245-BJC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROGER TEDI EDWARDS,
Petitioner,
v.
CDCR, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-1245-BJC-VET
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[ECF No. 2] AND
(2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Petitioner Roger Tedi Edwards (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has
filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2024
San Diego County Superior Court judgment of conviction, accompanied by a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.)
MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Upon review, Petitioner has $0.00 on account at the California correctional
institution in which he is presently confined (see ECF No. 2 at 5, 7), and he cannot afford
the $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and allows him to prosecute the above-referenced action without being
required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security. The Clerk of
Court will file the Petition without prepayment of the filing fee.
Case 3:26-cv-01245-BJC-VET Document 3 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-1245-BJC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FAILURE TO NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT
Petitioner fails to name the state officer having custody of him as respondent. Ortiz-
Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996), citing R. 2(a), Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases (2019). 	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. 	“[T]he ‘state officer having custody’ may be ‘either the
warden of the institution in which the petitioner is incarcerated . . . or the chief officer in
charge of state penal institutions.’” 	Id., quoting R. 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases (2019), advisory committee’s note. Here, Petitioner has incorrectly named “CDCR”
and “State of California” as Respondents. 	(ECF No. 1 at 1.) 	In order for this Court to
entertain the Petition, Petitioner must name the warden in charge of the state correctional
facility in which he is presently confined or the Director of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.
1992) (per curiam); see also Ashley v. Washington, 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968) (“The
actual person who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.”) Thus, the
Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to name a proper Respondent.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF
No. 2] and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice for failure to name a proper
Respondent.1 If Petitioner wishes to re-open and proceed with this habeas action, he must
1 The Court also notes Petitioner alleges exhaustion as to seven of his eight enumerated
claims (Claims 1-7, see ECF No. 1 at 6-12), but because his eighth claim appears to allege
errors by the California Supreme Court in the state court post-conviction process (see id.
at 13), it appears unnecessary to sua sponte make a preliminary determination as to
exhaustion. 	See Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) “[A]
petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable
through habeas corpus proceedings.”); see also Gerlaugh v. Stewart, 129 F.3d 1027, 1045
(9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting federal habeas claim alleging error in state post-conviction
Case 3:26-cv-01245-BJC-VET Document 3 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-1245-BJC-VET
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
submit, no later than May 1, 2026, a copy of this Order along with a completed Amended
Petition form that cures the pleading deficiencies outlined in the instant Order. The Clerk
of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Amended Habeas Petition
form together with a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026 	___________________________________
Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks
United States District Judge
process, reasoning “errors concerning such a process are not cognizable in federal habeas
proceedings.”), citing Franzen, 877 F.2d at 26; see also Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195,
1197-98 (“When a state prisoner has failed to allege a deprivation of a federal right, § 2254
does not apply and it is unnecessary for us to determine whether the prisoner satisfied the
§ 2254(b) exhaustion requirement.”), citing Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 120 n. 19 (1982).
Case 3:26-cv-01245-BJC-VET Document 3 Filed 03/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3