Howard E. Hughes v. State of Nevada Attorney General of Nevada

50 F.3d 14 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Howard E. HUGHES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA; Attorney General of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-15863. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 7, 1995. * Decided March 13, 1995. Before: SNEED, POOLE, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Howard E. Hughes, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal on the merits of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas petition. Hughes contends that the district court applied an erroneous standard in considering his ineffective assistance of counsel claim and that the district court's findings of fact are insufficient to support the court's conclusions of law. We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 3 "A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition." Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21…