Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01318/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 JDDL

WO RP

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James J. Hubbs, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Robert C. Houser, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1318-PHX-GMS (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner James J. Hubbs has filed a “Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus By A

Person On Release To Be In State Custody, Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254" (Doc. 1)

(Petition), a “Memorandum In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus” (Doc. 2)

(Memorandum), and an “Appendix For Memorandum Of Petition For Writ Of Habeas

Corpus” (Doc. 3) (Appendix). The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. Petitioner is represented

by Joseph Saienni, Esq., and W. Clifford Girard, Jr., Esq. The Court will dismiss the Petition

with leave to amend.

I. Petition

Robert C. Houser, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, is named as Respondent

in the Petition. In the Petition, Petitioner challenges his February 12, 2008, jury conviction

in the Arcadia Biltmore Justice Court of Maricopa County, in case number TR2006-178524,

of driving while intoxicated, in violation of A.R.S. § 28-1381(A)1, a class one misdemeanor.

Case 2:10-cv-01318-GMS Document 10 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

JDDL - 2 -

On June 18, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced to ten days in jail, with nine days being

suspended upon completion of alcohol screening and counseling, and payment of fines and

assessments. Petitioner was also required to have an alcohol detecting interlock on his

vehicle.

Petitioner alleges that he is currently on release “pending his appeal status and the

resolution of this Petition.” Petitioner further alleges that he has exhausted his state remedies

and that, on June 18, 2010, the Justice Court stayed his order of confinement pending the

resolution of this Petition. 

In the Petition, Petitioner notes that his claims for relief are set out in detail in his

Memorandum. However, the Memorandum which was filed in this Court appears to be

missing pages i, iii, and 1. Page ii lists Petitioner’s Claims C, D, E, F, and G. Apparently,

Claims A and B are listed on the missing page i. Thus, the Petition and Memorandum are

not reviewable in any meaningful way by this Court because it is unclear precisely what are

Petitioner’s first two claims.

II. Improper Respondent

In the Petition, Petitioner has failed to name his current custodian, “the state officer

having custody of the applicant,” as the Respondent. See Rule 2(a), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court. Instead, Petitioner has named the

Honorable Robert C. Houser, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, as Respondent.

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S. § 2254 must name the state officer

having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d

1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997). “Failure to name the petitioner’s custodian as a respondent

deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction.” Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21

F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994).

Typically, a petitioner’s custodian is the warden of the institution where the petitioner

is incarcerated. However, because Petitioner is not in physical custody, it appears that the

appropriate Respondent in this instance is the Attorney General of the State of Arizona. See

Rule 2(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,

Case 2:10-cv-01318-GMS Document 10 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

JDDL - 3 -

Advisory Comm. Notes (1976) (if the “applicant is in custody in any manner differing from”

being “in jail, prison, or other actual physical restraint” or “on probation or parole,” the

“named respondent should be the attorney general of the state wherein such action was

taken”); see also Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (“In other cases,

the petitioner may name the state attorney general”). Accordingly, in order to confer

personal jurisdiction on this Court, Petitioner should have named the Attorney General of the

State of Arizona as Respondent.

III. Dismissal of Petition with Leave to Amend

For the above reasons, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to

file an amended petition that contains all of Petitioner’s claims for relief and names a proper

respondent. 

Petitioner should take notice that if he fails to timely file an amended petition, the

Clerk of Court will enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without further notice to

Petitioner. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) The Petition (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend.

Petitioner has 30 days from the date this Order is filed to file an amended petition in

compliance with this Order. 

(2) If Petitioner fails to file an amended petition within 30 days from the filing date

of this Order, the Clerk of Court must enter, without further notice to Petitioner, a judgment

of dismissal of this action without prejudice.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01318-GMS Document 10 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 3