govinfo:USCOURTS-idd-1_26-cv-00167-0

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 
 
SANTOS CUEVAS, 
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
GOVERNOR OF IDAHO, 
 
Respondent. 
 

 
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER 
 
 
 
 Petitioner Santos Cuevas, a prisoner in the custody of the Or egon Department of 
Corrections, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habe as Corpus in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 
§ 2254. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner challenges a 2011 conviction in Oregon state court. Id. at 1. 
 The Court now reviews the Petition to dete rmine whether it is subject to summary 
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 
(“Habeas Rules”). Having reviewed the reco rd, and otherwise bei ng fully informed, the 
Court enters the following Order directin g Petitioner to file an amended petition if 
Petitioner intends to proceed. 
REVIEW OF PETITION 
1. Standard of Law for Review of Petition 
Federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available to petitioners who 
show that they are held in custody under a state court judg ment and that such custody 
violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The 
Court is required to review a habeas corpus petition upon receipt to determine whether it 

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 2 
is subject to dismissal. Habeas Rule 4. Summary dismissal is appropriate where “it plainly 
appears from the face of the petition and any a ttached exhibits that the petitioner is not 
entitled to relief in the district court.” Id. 
2. Discussion 
The Petition appears subject to summary dismissal for two reasons. First, Petitioner 
has not named an appropriate respondent. Under Habeas Rule 2(a), the proper respondent 
in a habeas corpus action is the “officer who has custody” of the petitioner. In most cases, 
this officer is “the ward en of the facility where th e prisoner is being held.” Rumsfeld v. 
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). The named Resp ondent, the Governor of Idaho, does 
not have custody of Petitioner and, therefore, is not an appropriate respondent. 
 Second, habeas relief “may be gr anted by … the district courts … within their 
respective jurisdictions .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (emphasis added)). That is, a “habeas 
petition can be brought in the co urt with jurisdiction over th e prisoner or his custodian.” 
Fest v. Bartee, 804 F.2d 559, 560 (9 th Cir. 1986) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit 
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495–99 (1973)). 
 Because Petitioner is incarcerated in Oregon as a result of an Oregon state 
conviction, the Court lacks personal jurisd iction over Petitioner. Though the Court might 
have personal jurisdiction over the Governor of Idaho, the Court has already explained that 
the governor is not a proper respondent. Theref ore, it appears that the District of Idaho is 
not the appropriate forum for Petitioner to litigate this habeas corpus matter. 
 The Court will grant Petitioner 28 days to file an amended petition. Any such 
amended petition must address the Court’s analysis and set forth any reason why Petitioner 

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3 
 
 
believes this case should not be summarily dismissed. 
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that, within 28 days after entry of this Order, Petitioner must file 
an amended petition as set forth above. If Petitioner fails to file a timely amended petition, 
or if it appears from the face of the amended petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, 
this case may be dismissed without further notice. 
DATED: June 18, 2026 
 
 
 _________________________ 
 David C. Nye 
 U.S. District Court Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight