
    Dick SKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bruno STOLC, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-35473.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 29, 2012.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2012.
    Glenda Kerry, Esquire, Law Office of Glenda J. Kerry, Girdwood, AK, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    William Hawley, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Alaska Attorney General, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dick Sky appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for failure to name the proper respondent. Sky named as respondent Bruno Stoic, the warden of the private correctional facility where he was being held. Stoic filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that he was not the proper respondent because he was not a “state officer who has custody” as required by the Rules Governing [28 U.S.C.] § 2254 Cases. The district court dismissed Sky’s petition with prejudice after Sky failed to amend to name the proper respondent, Alaska Commissioner of Corrections Joseph Schmidt. Whether a habeas petitioner has named the proper respondent is reviewed de novo. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.1996). Failure to name the proper respondent strips the district court of personal jurisdiction. Id.

Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases states that “[i]f the petitioner is currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody.” Sky concedes that Stoic is not a state officer, but argues that Stoic remains the proper respondent because Stoic had custody of Sky. However, Alaska Statute § 33.30.051 states that “[a] person convicted of an offense against the state shall be committed to the custody of the commissioner.” See Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d at 895 (holding that the proper respondent in a habeas petition depends in part on who has official custody of prisoners in the penal system of the state in question). Although Stoic had physical custody of Sky at the time Sky filed his habeas petition, Stoic is not a state officer and, thus, is not the proper respondent.

The dismissal with prejudice of Sky’s habeas petition for failure to name the proper respondent is AFFIRMED.

All pending motions are DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     