Brittingham v. U.S., 92-16680
| Citation | 982 F.2d 378 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-16680,92-16680 |
| Parties | Mark BRITTINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Birney Bervar, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, HI, for petitioner-appellant.
Edward H. Kubo, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, HI, for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before: GOODWIN, O'SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Brittingham appeals the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction in this case. We affirm.
For a court to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it must have jurisdiction over the prisoner or his custodian. United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1984). Brittingham contends that, for the purposes of his petition, the U.S. Marshal for the District of Hawaii was his custodian, and therefore the district court in Hawaii had jurisdiction. This novel argument is not based on the facts.
The proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's "immediate custodian." Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F.2d 1114, 1115 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Bork, J., in chambers). A custodian Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C.Cir.1986) ().
At the time Brittingham filed his petition, he was in custody in Alameda County Jail, a California State facility used for the detention of federal prisoners until their assignment to a federal prison by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Brittingham's custodian, within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute, was the warden of the facility where he was confined. Id.; Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989) ().
The U.S. Marshal for the District of Hawaii had been responsible for transporting Brittingham to California. Whether the same marshal would later transfer the prisoner to the BOP for confinement pursuant to his sentence is a question not now before us. In any event, the U.S. Marshal did not have "day-to-day control" over Brittingham and, for the purposes of a habeas corpus petition, does not qualify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rasmussen v. Garrett, Case No. 3:20-cv-00865-IM
...statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition" is the petitioner's custodian); Brittingham v. U.S. , 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that "[t]he proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's ‘immediate custodian’ ") ......
-
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
...General or some other remote supervisory official. See, e.g., Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F. 3d 189, 190 (CA7 1996); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F. 2d 378, 379 (CA9 1992); Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F. 2d 1487, 1491-1492 (CA10 1991) (per curiam); Brennan v. Cunningham, 813 F. 2d 1, 12 (CA1 1987......
-
Armentero v. I.N.S.
...name the warden of the institution at which the prisoner is confined. See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 894; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992); Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416 (D.C.Cir.1986). Both Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law, however, have recogniz......
-
Ali v. Ashcroft
...respondents in this case because they do not have "day-to-day control" over Petitioners.7 The government cites Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir.1992), in which we stated that "[t]he proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner's `immediate custo......