facility in which he is confined. See Depineda v. Hemphill, 25 F.3d 1056, No. 94-1094, 1994 WL 247025, at *3 (10th Cir. June 9, 1994) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision). The warden is a necessary party to a § 2254 action. See id.; see also Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“If the petitioner is currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has custody.”); Bridges v. Chambers, 425 F.3d 1048, 1049 (7th Cir.2005) (“A federal habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner must name as the respondent the state officer who has custody of the petitioner.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354-55 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Kailey, however, did not name the warden
holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition holding that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a habeas petition when the state official having custody is not named as respondent holding that state law claims cannot pend from a federal one over which the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed