The defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiff has opposed the motion.
The plaintiff alleges that the California court incorrectly interpreted the treaty and is seeking relief from the confinement that will be imposed upon him by the California court. Despite the plaintiff's contention that this case is properly before this Court under its federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff is asserting that the California court that issued his detainer was in violation of the Treaty between the United States and Brazil. Therefore, he must proceed in habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (. . . a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States) (emphasis added); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 274 U.S. App. D.C. 398, 864 F.2d 804, 808-809 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (challenge to present or future confinement must be made by habeas corpus).
A court may not entertain a habeas corpus action unless it has personal jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner. Guerra v. Meese, 252 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 786 F.2d 414, 415 (D.C. Cir. 1986). In this case, the official who issued the detainer in California is deemed the plaintiff's custodian for purposes of attacking the detainer. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over an official of the State of California, and therefore, the case must be dismissed. The plaintiff may file an appropriate habeas corpus action in the California State court where the detainer was issued.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the case is dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.