Opinion ID: 787771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Lack of Personal Jurisdiction over the Petition

Text: 9 Although neither the parties nor the district court have considered whether the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Smith's habeas petition, we have an independent obligation to examine the jurisdiction of both the district court as well as our court. See Breed v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 253 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.2001). 10 It is well-established in our Circuit that a petitioner for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition. Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994); see also Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Allen v. State of Oregon, 153 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir.1998). This person typically is the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. We explained in Stanley that [f]ailure to name the petitioner's custodian as a respondent deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction over the petition. Id. 11 As the caption of this case indicates, however, Smith named the State of Idaho — and not the state official having custody of him — as the respondent in his federal habeas petition. Thus, under Stanley, the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over Smith's habeas petition. Our inquiry does not end there, however, because it is well-recognized that personal jurisdiction — unlike subject-matter jurisdiction — may be waived. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (Because the requirement of personal jurisdiction represents first of all an individual right, it can, like other such rights, be waived.); Chan v. Soc'y Expeditions, Inc., 39 F.3d 1398, 1406 (9th Cir.1994). Although we have not previously considered whether the lack of personal jurisdiction over a habeas petition may be waived by the state or an appropriate state official, we see no reason not to apply the general rule in the habeas context. 3 In a § 2254 habeas petition, the immediate custodian is named as a respondent in his or her official capacity, as the state official legally responsible for the petitioner's continued detention. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.1996). Because the custodian is the state's agent — and the state is therefore the custodian's principal — the state may waive the lack of personal jurisdiction on the custodian's behalf. 4 12 We hold that the State of Idaho waived the district court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Smith's immediate custodian and submits itself in the custodian's stead to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. 5 We proceed to consider the merits of Smith's appeal. 13