Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00599/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19cv599-WQH-BLM

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEN ANDERSON, as next friend 

and on behalf of, father; EVE 

LOVE ANDERSON, mother; 

M.L. ANDERSON, kid, 

Petitioners,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA, County of 

Humboldt,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv599-WQH-BLM

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On April 1, 2019, Petitioners Ben Anderson, Eve Love Anderson, and M.L. 

Anderson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), and a motion to appoint 

counsel (ECF No. 2). Petitioners bring claims against Respondent Superior Court of 

California based on child custody and related proceedings before the Superior Court in 

Humboldt County. Petitioners claim violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments 

on the grounds that that their child suffered an adverse reaction to medication while in the 

custody of state child protective services. Petitioners request their child be released into 

their custody and an investigation of their child’s injuries. Petitioners request appointment 

of an attorney to represent that family, stating that they “have not found the right one,” 

Case 3:19-cv-00599-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv599-WQH-BLM

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

despite numerous attempts to retain attorneys in California, Arizona, and Ohio. (ECF No. 

2). 

As a general matter, “[d]istrict [c]ourts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within 

their respective jurisdictions.’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(a)). A federal court issuing a writ of habeas corpus must have personal 

jurisdiction over the custodian, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 

495 (1973), which is often referred to as the “local custodian rule.” Without such 

jurisdiction, the court has no authority to direct the actions of the restraining authority. 

Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that a California district 

court did not have jurisdiction over a habeas action related to a prisoner confined in 

Missouri). The court has personal jurisdiction over the custodian if the court can reach the 

custodian by service of process. Braden, 410 U.S. at 495. Where a petitioner names a 

respondent who is outside the district court’s territorial limits, the court lacks personal 

jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Malone, 165 F. 3d at 1237. Even if there is 

personal jurisdiction, however, the preferable forum for a § 2241 habeas petition is the 

district of confinement. See McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th 

Cir. 1976); see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249–50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting 

that even where the district court has personal jurisdiction over the custodian, the preferred 

forum for a § 2241 petition is the district where the petitioner is confined).

In this case, the Respondent is in Humboldt County, California, which is outside the 

territorial limits of this district. The Petition contains no facts demonstrating that 

Petitioners seek release from a confinement by a custodian with personal jurisdiction in 

this Court. The Court finds that the Petition must be dismissed. 

The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00599-WQH-BLM Document 5 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2