Woodruff v. Abbott
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28:2254.Objections to R&R due by 9/7/2005. Signed by Judge Beverly Stites Jones on 8/16/05. (Attachments: # 1)(ct)
Woodruff v. Abbott
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: DAVID WOODRUFF
Civil No. 05-5137
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION David Woodruff, a state inmate housed in a Wyoming penitentiary, brings a pro se motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I have not authorized a response. Woodruff challenges a Wyoming state conviction. In 1997, he was convicted of first degree sexual assault and attempted first degree sexual assault. (See Att. "A"). The Clerk's Office attempted to return Woodruff's petition but he insisted it be filed in this court and submitted to a judge. (Att."B"). To grant habeas corpus relief, a district court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian. Bearden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973). See Rule 2 (a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody). This district court lacks jurisdiction over the custodian of Woodruff's institution, Warden Abbott. I recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over the custodian. The petitioner has ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
Page 2 of 2
DATED this 16th day of August 2005.
/s/Beverly Stites Jones HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?