Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-0579
04-12-2012
Douglas-William Hysell, Petitioner, v. State of California, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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 pauperis. 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, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 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 Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); accord Rooney v. Secretary of Army, 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 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 California courts. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
____________________
United States District Judge