Breedlove

Breedlove v. Wood

Good Law
40 F. App'x 600
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 1, 2002No. 00-35750; D.C. No. CV-99-05098-RJBCalifornia702 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The Washington district court had personal jurisdiction over Lawrence Breed-love’s (“Breedlove’s”) 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ha-beas petition even though Breedlove was transferred to an Oklahoma prison pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact Act before the petition was filed. See Wash. Rev.Code § 72.74.020. The “sending” state has continued jurisdiction over and constructive custody of a prisoner transferred under the Interstate Corrections Compact Act. See Fest v. Bartee, 804 F.2d 559, 560 (9th Cir.1986) (deciding ha-beas jurisdiction over a prisoner convicted of rape in Nebraska but transferred to Nevada under the Interstate Corrections Compact was in Nebraska). Washington had jurisdiction because Breedlove challenged the validity of his Washington conviction and sentence rather than the execution of the sentence. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 , 93 S.Ct. 1123 , 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (holding a Kentucky district court had jurisdiction over an Alabama prisoner’s habeas petition challenging a Kentucky indictment). Cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989) (deciding a Washington district court lacked personal jurisdiction over a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.