T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DI C K S KY , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. BRU N O STO LC, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35473 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 1 5 2 - J WS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka J ohn W . S e dw i c k, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t29, 2012 ** A nc hor a ge , A l a s ka B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D i c k S kyappe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on f orf a i l ur e t o na m e the pr ope rr e s ponde nt . S ky n a m e d a s r e s p o n d e n t B ru n o S to lc , th e w a r d e n o f th e p r iv a te c o rr e c tio n a l f a c ility 

# FI LED AU G 31 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSw here he w as bei ng hel d. S t ol c f i l ed a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for l ac k o f per sonal ju r is d ic tio n , a r g u in g th a t h e w a s n o t th e p r o p e rr e s p o n d e n t b e c au s e h e w a s n o t a “s ta te o f f ic e rw h o h a s c u s to d y ” a s r e q u ir e db yth e R u le s G o v e rn in g [ 2 8 U .S .C .] § 2254 C a s e s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d S ky ’ s pe t i t i on w i th pr e j udi c e a f t e rS ky f a i l e d t o a m e nd t o na m e the pr ope rr e s ponde nt , A l a s kaC om m i s s i one rof C orre ct i on s J oseph S chm i dt . W hether ahabeas pet i t i on erhas nam ed the prop er r e s ponde nti s r e vi e w e d de no vo . O rt i z- Sa ndovalv. G om ez , 8 1 F .3 d8 9 1 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C i r . 1996) . F a i l ur e t o na m e the pr ope rr e s ponde nts tr i ps the di s tr i c tc ourtof p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n . I

d. R ul e 2(a ) of the R ul es G ov erni ng § 2 25 4 C as es st at es that“ [i ] f the pet i t i on er i s c urre nt l y i n cust od y und era s t at e- courtj ud gm ent , the pet i t i on m ustnam e a s r e s p o n d e n t th e s ta te o f

f ic e rw h o h a s c u s to d y .” S k yc o n c e d e s th a t S to lc is n o t a st at e off i ce r, bu tar gu es thatS t ol c r em ai ns the prop erre spon dentbecause S t ol c had c us t odyof

S ky . H ow e ve r , A l a s kaS t a tut e § 33. 30. 051 s t a t e s tha t“ [ a ] pe r s on c onvi c t e d of

a n of f e ns e a ga i ns tthe s t a t e s ha l l be c om m i tt e d t o the c us t odyof the com m i ss i on er . ” See O r t i z - Sandov al , 81 F . 3dat89 5 (ho l di ng thatthe prop er r e s ponde nti n ahabe a s pe t i t i on de pe nds i n pa rton w ho ha s of f i c i a l c us t odyof pri soners i n the penal sy st em of the st at e i n q uest i on ). A l tho ug h S t ol c had ph ys i ca l cust od y of S ky atthe t i m e S ky fi l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on , S t ol c i s nota s t at e off i ce r a n d , th u s , is n o t th e p r o p e rr e s p o n d e n t.T he di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e of S ky ’ s habe a s pe t i t i on f orf a i l ur e t o na m e the p r o p e rr e s p o n d e n ti s AF F I R ME D. Al l p e n d i n g m o t i o n s a r e DE NI E D.