Allred v. State of Washington

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMarch 29, 2023
Docket3:23-cv-05182
StatusUnknown

This text of Allred v. State of Washington (Allred v. State of Washington) 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
Allred v. State of Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER ALLAN ALLRED, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05182-LK-JRC 11 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SERVICE AND 12 v. ANSWER, § 2254 PETITION 13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Respondent. 15 16 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently 17 incarcerated at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (“CRCC”) and is subject to the Court’s 18 Electronic E-Filing Program pursuant to General Orders 02-15 and 06-16. The Court, having 19 reviewed petitioner’s federal habeas petition, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 20 (1) Petitioner names State of Washington as respondent. Dkt. 1. The proper 21 respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 22 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. 23 Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). The official having custody of petitioner where he is 24 1 currently confined – CRCC – is CRCC’s Superintendent Melissa Andrewjeski. Accordingly, the 2 Clerk is directed to substitute Superintendent Melissa Andrewjeski as the respondent in this 3 action. If any party believes that Superintendent Andrewjeski is not the proper respondent, the 4 party shall file a motion to substitute the correct respondent.

5 (2) The Clerk shall arrange for service by e-mail upon respondent and upon the 6 Attorney General of the State of Washington, copies of the petition, all documents in support 7 thereof, and this Order. The Clerk shall also direct a copy of this Order and the Court’s pro se 8 instruction sheet to petitioner. 9 (3) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent(s) shall file and serve an 10 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States 11 District Courts. As part of such answer, respondent(s) shall state whether petitioner has 12 exhausted available state remedies and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. 13 Respondent(s) shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing 14 cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Respondent(s) shall file the answer with the Clerk of

15 the Court and serve a copy of the answer on petitioner. 16 (4) The answer will be treated in accordance with LCR 7. Accordingly, on the face 17 of the answer, respondent(s) shall note it for consideration on the fourth Friday after filing. 18 Petitioner may file and serve a response not later than the Monday immediately preceding the 19 Friday designated for consideration of the matter, and respondent(s) may file and serve a reply 20 not later than the Friday designated for consideration of the matter. 21 (5) Filing by Parties, Generally 22 All attorneys admitted to practice before this Court are required to file documents 23 electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Petitioner shall file all documents electronically.

24 1 All filings must indicate in the upper right hand corner the name of the magistrate judge to whom 2 the document is directed. 3 Any document filed with the Court must be accompanied by proof that it has been served 4 upon all parties that have entered a notice of appearance in the underlying matter. Petitioner

5 shall indicate the date the document is submitted for e-filing as the date of service. 6 (6) Motions 7 Any request for court action shall be set forth in a motion, properly filed and served. 8 Pursuant to LCR 7(b), any argument being offered in support of a motion shall be submitted as a 9 part of the motion itself and not in a separate document. The motion shall include in its caption 10 (immediately below the title of the motion) a designation of the date the motion is to be noted for 11 consideration on the Court’s motion calendar. 12 (7) Direct Communications with District Judge or Magistrate Judge 13 No direct communication is to take place with the District Judge or Magistrate Judge with 14 regard to this case. All relevant information and papers are to be directed to the Clerk.

15 Dated this 29th day of March, 2023. 16

A 17

18 J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge 19

21 22 23 24

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

Related

William D. Dunne v. Gary L. Henman
875 F.2d 244 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
Mark Brittingham v. United States
982 F.2d 378 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Allred v. State of Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allred-v-state-of-washington-wawd-2023.