Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02080/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02080-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

KM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hugo Miguel Zatarain Villegas, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2080-PHX-DGC (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner Hugo Miguel Zatarain Villegas, who is confined in the Eden Detention

Center in Eden, Texas, has filed a Petition pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner alleges that his equal protection rights are violated because, as a deportable alien,

he is prohibited from participating in a drug treatment program which would make him

eligible for a sentence reduction. Further, Petitioner seeks immediate deportation pursuant

to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h)(2)(A). The Court finds that these claims are appropriately raised in

a § 2241 Petition; the Court will therefore construe Petitioner’s Motion as brought pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

A petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be filed in the

district court having jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204

F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 2241 petitions must be filed in the custodial court, not the

sentencing court). Petitioner is presently incarcerated in the Eden Detention Center in Eden,

Texas. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s custodian. 

Case 2:07-cv-02080-DGC--DKD Document 4 Filed 11/15/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Under the Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a “court finds that

there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such

action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990). This

Court will not transfer this action to a United States District Court in Texas, however,

because Petitioner has failed to name a proper Respondent.

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the officer having custody over him

as the respondent to the petition. Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th

Cir. 1994); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). “Normally, that

is the warden of the penitentiary where the prisoner is confined.” Miller, 905 F.2d at 261.

Petitioner has named the United States of America as the Respondent. The United

States is not the “person who holds the [P]etitioner in custody.” Id. “Failure to name the

petitioner’s custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.”

Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360 (citing Brittingham, 982 F.2d at 379, and Dunne v. Henman, 875

F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989)).

Because Petitioner has failed to name a proper respondent for a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, even if this Court were to transfer this action

to the proper federal District Court, that Court would not have personal jurisdiction to

proceed. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this habeas corpus action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and because this Court declines to transfer this action, the Court will

order that the Petition and this action be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. #1) and this action are dismissed without

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and the Clerk of the Court must enter judgment

accordingly.

DATED this 14th day of November, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02080-DGC--DKD Document 4 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 2