You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Keith Chandler v. California Board of Prison Terms Attorney General of the State of California

Citations: 59 F.3d 174; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23528; 1995 WL 354394Docket: 94-16795

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 12, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Keith Chandler appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by the district court. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in determining that Chandler's claim was not cognizable. However, it vacated the denial and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as Chandler failed to name the appropriate state officer having custody over him as the respondent. Instead, he named the California Board of Prison Terms and the Attorney General of California, neither of whom was his immediate custodian at the time the petition was filed. The court emphasized that proper naming of the custodian is essential for federal jurisdiction. Chandler has the opportunity to amend his petition to name the correct respondent. The decision was made without oral argument, and the memorandum is not designated for publication.

Legal Issues Addressed

Habeas Corpus Petition Requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Application: The court addresses the necessity for a habeas corpus petitioner to name the correct custodian to establish federal jurisdiction.

Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in determining that Chandler's claim was not cognizable.

Jurisdictional Requirement for Naming Custodian in Habeas Petitions

Application: The petition was dismissed due to Chandler's failure to name the appropriate state officer having custody over him as the respondent.

Reasoning: It vacated the denial and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, as Chandler failed to name the appropriate state officer having custody over him as the respondent.

Non-Publication of Judicial Memorandum

Application: The court's decision was made without oral argument and is not intended for publication.

Reasoning: The decision was made without oral argument, and the memorandum is not designated for publication.

Opportunity to Amend Habeas Corpus Petition

Application: Chandler is allowed to amend his petition to correct the respondent's name and resubmit it.

Reasoning: Chandler has the opportunity to amend his petition to name the correct respondent.