Sangechik v Cheipot [2001] FMSC 63; 10 FSM Intrm. 105 (Chk. 2001) (19 March 2001)

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA
SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as Sangechik v Cheipot, [2001] FMSC 63; 10 FSM Intrm. 105 (Chk. 2001)

KANTITO SANGECHIK
Petitioner,

vs.

KENT CHEIPOT, in his official capacity as Director of Public Safety,
State of Chuuk
Respondent

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2001-1006

ORDER

Richard H. Benson
Associate Justice

Decided: March 19, 2001

APPEARANCE:

For the Petitioner:
Michael A. Rowland, Esq.
FSM Public Defender
P.O. Box 754
Weno, Chuuk FM 96942

* * * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure; Habeas Corpus
Because a habeas corpus petition is a civil action (although the proceeding is unique), the clerk will assign the petition a civil action number and enter it on the civil side of the docket. Sangechik v. Cheipot, [2001] FMSC 63; 10 FSM Intrm. 105, 106 (Chk. 2001).

Civil Procedure - Pleadings
Errors in a case's caption can always be amended to correct technical defects. Sangechik v. Cheipot, [2001] FMSC 63; 10 FSM Intrm. 105, 106 (Chk. 2001).

Civil Procedure - Pleadings; Habeas Corpus
When the pleadings clearly name a person as the de facto keeper of the detention facility where the petitioner is currently incarcerated and the petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directed to that person in that capacity, that person is properly named as the respondent to the petition. Sangechik v. Cheipot, [2001] FMSC 63; 10 FSM Intrm. 105, 106 (Chk. 2001).

Habeas Corpus
Habeas corpus proceedings are commenced with an order, directed to the person having custody of the person detained, to show cause why the writ should not be issued. Sangechik v. Cheipot, [2001] FMSC 63; 10 FSM Intrm. 105, 106 (Chk. 2001).

* * * *

COURT'S OPINION

RICHARD H. BENSON, Associate Justice:

This petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed under the caption of Federated States of Micronesia, Plaintiff, v. Kantito Sangechik, Defendant, Crim. No. 1989-1510. Because a habeas corpus petition is a civil action, Harris v. Nelson, [1969] USSC 97; 394 U.S. 286, 293-94[1969] USSC 97; , 89 S. Ct. 1082, 1087[1969] USSC 97; , 22 L. Ed. 2d 281, 287 (1969) (habeas corpus proceedings are characterized as civil although the proceeding is unique); 39 Am. Jur. 2d Habeas Corpus § 8 (1999e clerk has assignedigned the petition a civil action number and entered it on the civil side of the docket.

This ororrects the caption to conform to the pleadings. Errors in the caption can always be amendemended to correct technical defects. See Moses v. M.V. Sea Chase, [2001] FMSC 56; 10 FSM Intrm. 45, 51 (Chk. 2001) (failure to style action against vessel as in rem in the caption, not fatal defect as caption can always be corrected to conform to complaint's contents); Estate of Mori v. Chuuk, [2001] FMSC 49; 10 FSM Intrm. 6, 9 (Chk. 2001) (caption amended at party's request to conform to pleadings); Aurora Shores Homeowners Ass'n v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 2 F. Supp. 2d 975, 981 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (new party defendant added in amended complaint but not identified in case caption, dismissal denied); Spring Water Dairy, Inc. v. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank, 625 F. Supp. 713, 721 n.5 (D. Minn. 1986) (failure to name party as defendant in the caption does not mean action cannot be maintained against him when complaint makes a number of explicit references to him and he was served); 5 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1321, at 728-30. Thedings cngs clearly name Kent Cheipot as the Director of Public Safety and as the de facto keeper of the detention facility where the petitioner is currently incarcerated and the petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directed Kent Cheipot in that capacity. Kent Cheipot is therefore properly named as the respondent to the petition.

Further filings shall therefore employ the corrected caption (as it appears above) and the assigned docket number.

Pursuant to statute, 6 F.S.M.C. 1506(1), habeas corpus proceedings are commenced with an order, directed to the person having custody of the person detained, to show cause why the writ should not be issued. The petitioner is requested to submit such a proposed order.

* * * *