Opinion
Civil Action 22-1095 (UNA)
05-06-2022
JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TREVOR N. MCFADDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the petition for a writ habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) of Jermaine Joseph Dunlap, a California state prisoner. The assertions set forth in the petition are incomprehensible. That said, by filing a habeas petition the Court presumes that petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence and demands his release from custody.
A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is petitioner's custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004), who ordinarily is the warden of the facility where a petitioner is detained, see Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988). And this “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 Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The petition neither names petitioner's custodian as a respondent nor demonstrates that the respondent is in the District of Columbia.
The Court will grant petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.