Hysell v. State of California

District of Columbia

Hysell v. State of California

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 12, 2012

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-0579

StatusPublished

This text of Hysell v. State of California (Hysell v. State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hysell v. State of California, (D.D.C. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED srATEs DISTRICT CoURr APR 1 2 2012 F9R THE DISTRICT @F C@LUMBIA cterk, u.s. manner a Bankruptc Courts for the District of Columbl[a Doug1as-William Hyse11, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.

) 12 0579 State of Califomia, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM GPINION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In addition, petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

The substance of the petition is unclear, but petitioner appears to be challenging his confinement and has named the State of California as the respondent. However, the proper respondent in habeas corpus cases is the petitioner’s warden or immediate custodian, Rumsfela' v, Padz`lla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); B!az'r-Bey v. Quz`ck, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C, Cir. 1998), and "a district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction." Stokes v. U.S. Parole Cornmz'ssz`on, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); accord Rooney v. Secretary ofArrny, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate, not the ultimate, custodian is located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Since petitioner’s custodian is not in the District of Columbia, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over the instant petition. However, having perused the attachments to the petition, the

\\A

Court does not find it in the interests of justice to transfer this action because it appears that

petitioner has already been denied habeas relief in the Ca ` ` » rts. A separate Order of

f dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opini‘

United States District Judge Date: March£r], 2012

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

UNITED srATEs DISTRICT CoURr APR 1 2 2012 F9R THE DISTRICT @F C@LUMBIA cterk, u.s. manner a Bankruptc Courts for the District of Columbl[a Doug1as-William Hyse11, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.

) 12 0579 State of Califomia, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM GPINION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a state prisoner incarcerated at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. In addition, petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

The substance of the petition is unclear, but petitioner appears to be challenging his confinement and has named the State of California as the respondent. However, the proper respondent in habeas corpus cases is the petitioner’s warden or immediate custodian, Rumsfela' v, Padz`lla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); B!az'r-Bey v. Quz`ck, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C, Cir. 1998), and "a district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction." Stokes v. U.S. Parole Cornmz'ssz`on, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); accord Rooney v. Secretary ofArrny, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate, not the ultimate, custodian is located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Since petitioner’s custodian is not in the District of Columbia, this Court lacks

jurisdiction over the instant petition. However, having perused the attachments to the petition, the

\\A

Court does not find it in the interests of justice to transfer this action because it appears that

petitioner has already been denied habeas relief in the Ca ` ` » rts. A separate Order of

f dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opini‘

United States District Judge Date: March£r], 2012

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hysell v. State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hysell-v-state-of-california-dcd-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack