Worth Malcolm Briggs, IV v. Nicole Morrisey O’Donnell et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Oregon grants the State of Oregon’s motion to dismiss it from a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court holds that the petitioner’s immediate custodian, rather than the State, is the proper habeas respondent and that the court therefore lacks personal jurisdiction over the State.

Holdings

1. A federal habeas petitioner generally must name the person having immediate custody over him, ordinarily the warden or official with day-to-day control over the facility; the State of Oregon was not a proper respondent because it did not have such control over Briggs.
2. Failure to name the proper habeas respondent deprives the federal court of personal jurisdiction over that respondent; because the State was not Briggs's immediate custodian, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the State.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State of Oregon was a proper respondent in Briggs's § 2241 habeas action when it was not his immediate custodian.
2. Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the State of Oregon in the habeas proceeding.

Disposition

dismissed