John Leland Neeley v. California State Department of Corrections Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General

91 F.3d 153 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. John Leland NEELEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-16143. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 25, 1996. * Decided June 28, 1996. Before: NOONAN, LEAVY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California prisoner John Leland Neeley appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 3 A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must name the state officer having custody of him as the respondent to the petition. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, No. 94-16337, slip op. 5611, at 5617 (9th Cir. May 8, 1996); Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam); Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28…