Ackerman v. Obenland

W.D. Washington

Ackerman v. Obenland

DecidedMarch 11, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-05110

StatusUnknown

This text of Ackerman v. Obenland (Ackerman v. Obenland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ackerman v. Obenland, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JONATHAN E ACKERMAN, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-05110-JCC-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 3. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State of Washington as 18 Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody 19 over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 20 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). According to his 21 Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Monroe Corrections Center (“MCC”) in Monroe, 22 Washington. See Dkt. 3. The Superintendent of MCC is Mike Obenland. 23 24 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Mike Obenland as the 2 Respondent in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 3 Dated this 11th day of March, 2021. 4 A 5 David W. Christel 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JONATHAN E ACKERMAN, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-05110-JCC-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 17 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 3. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State of Washington as 18 Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody 19 over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 20 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). According to his 21 Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Monroe Corrections Center (“MCC”) in Monroe, 22 Washington. See Dkt. 3. The Superintendent of MCC is Mike Obenland. 23 24 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Mike Obenland as the 2 Respondent in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 3 Dated this 11th day of March, 2021. 4 A 5 David W. Christel 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ackerman v. Obenland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ackerman-v-obenland-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack