Robert A. Hungerschafer v. State of California Attorney General for the State of California

59 F.3d 175 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert A. HUNGERSCHAFER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; Attorney General for the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-55928. 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 Robert A. Hungerschafer appeals pro se the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 . Hungerschafer contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing and permit discovery on his claims that his attorney was ineffective during his guilty plea to driving while under the influence of alcohol and at sentencing. 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…