United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
December 6, 2005.
EDWARD M. KOPANSKI, Plaintiff,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. CAPUTO, District Judge
Before me is the Emergency Petition, (Doc. 5) for the
Petitioner Edward M. Kopanski, Esquire. The Emergency Petition
seeks a stay of the commencement date of his sentence until he
has "exhausted all of his federal remedies". Id. The Emergency
Petition relates to a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody which was filed
November 18, 2005. (Doc. 1) In the § 2254 petition, Mr. Kopanski
states he is to serve a sentence of six months probation and pay
a $1,000.00 fine. (Doc. 1) An order of the Court of Common Pleas
of Centre County dated November 7, 2005 directs that Mr. Kopanski
commence his sentence December 8, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. and that on
"that date and at that time Edward M. Kopanski shall report to
the Centre County Probation Department" (Doc. 6). The Emergency
Petition before me seeks a stay to allow for the exhaustion of
federal remedies which I must assume is the Court's consideration
of the Petition of the § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
I have reviewed both petitions and find that they are defective
as to personal jurisdiction over the respondent for the reason
that they fail to comply with Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Mr.
Kopanski fails to name the state official having custody of him,
and he fails to name the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, all in accordance with Rule 2(b) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Mr.
Kopanski named only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as
respondent in both the Emergency Petition and the § 2254 Habeas
Corpus Petition. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
respondent in this case because Mr. Kopanski failed to name the
persons having custody of him, and, who are required to be named
under Rule 2(b). See Smith v. Idaho, 383 F.3d 934, 937 (9th
Cir. 2004); Stanley v. California Supreme Court 21 F.3d 359,
360 (9th Cir. 1994) and Proudfoot v. Furlong, No. 96-7747,
1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14920, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 1997). In view
of the lack of personal jurisdiction, the Emergency Petition will
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Emergency Petition is
dismissed without prejudice.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.