Hysell v. State of California

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