Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07104/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07104-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1:":1 I L .c.i D l4 . ,. A .., .... , .. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States C,o~ ~! P~ ·' Te"lth r •""'11' • 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 2 71992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

JOY JIMMY NEAL, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

A.F. BEELER, and ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA, 

Respondents-Appellees . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No . 91-7104 

(D. C. No. CIV-91-070-S) 

( E • D • Okla . ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Neal appeals the dismissal of his habeas petition. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 91-7104 Document: 010110226163 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 1 
Mr. Neal is a federal prison inmate serving time for a 

violation of federal law. Mr. Neal filed a prose habeas petition 

challenging a state court conviction. The two named defendants 

are the warden of the federal prison where Mr. Neal is currently 

confined and the Attorney General of Oklahoma, which is the state 

wherein the challenged conviction occurred. 

We grant Mr. Neal permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The district court, reasoning that the federal warden could 

not be reached under 28 u.s.c. S 2254 and that Oklahoma's Attorney 

General was not a proper party as: (1) Oklahoma does not have 

jurisdiction over Mr. Neal; and (2) Mr. Neal has no state sentence 

to be served in the future, dismissed this petition without 

prejudice. 

Mr. Neal appeals prose asserting the merits of his pro se 

complaint, i . e., he was found incompetent to stand trial in state 

court, and the prosecutor and the state trial court reneged on 

their agreement not to prosecute Mr. Neal once he was restored to 

sanity. He correctly argues the district court failed to address 

these allegations. However, Mr. Neal fails to understand his 

habeas petition was dismissed because he sued the wrong people. A 

judge cannot decide a case unless the proper parties have been 

named as defendants. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-7104 Document: 010110226163 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 2 
Mr. Neal commenced this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which 

provides a remedy for a person in custody pursuant to a state 

court conviction. Mr. Neal was paroled from state custody on 

March 1, 1990. Nothing in the record indicates Mr. Neal must 

serve additional time on the Oklahoma charge. As Mr. Neal is not 

in state custody and as there is nothing in the record that would 

suggest he must in the future serve any state time, the Oklahoma 

Attorney General is not a proper party. Rule 2 

2254 cases. As Mr. Neal is not challenging 

conviction, the federal warden is not a proper party. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Rules Section 

his federal 

Appellate Case: 91-7104 Document: 010110226163 Date Filed: 02/27/1992 Page: 3