Keith Chandler v. California Board of Prison Terms Attorney General of the State of California

59 F.3d 174 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Keith CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON TERMS; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-16795. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 6, 1995. * Decided June 12, 1995. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Keith Chandler appeals pro se the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 . Chandler contends that the district court erred by finding that his claim was not cognizable in habeas corpus. 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 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2254). "Failure to name the…