Bagby v. Uttecht

W.D. Washington

Bagby v. Uttecht

DecidedNovember 12, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-05988

StatusUnknown

This text of Bagby v. Uttecht (Bagby v. Uttecht) 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

Bagby v. Uttecht, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAVID BAGBY, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05988-BJR-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 JEFFREY A UTTECHT, 14 Respondent.

15 Petitioner David Bagby, who is proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se, filed a Petition 16 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 5. In his Petition, Petitioner named 17 the State of Washington as Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the 18 “person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham 19 v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 20 1989). According to his Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Coyote Ridge Corrections 21 Center (“CRCC”) in Connell, Washington. See Dkt. 5. The Superintendent of CRCC is Jeffrey 22 A. Uttecht. 23

24 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Jeffrey A. Uttecht as the 2 Respondent in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 3 Dated this 12th day of November, 2020. 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 DAVID BAGBY, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-05988-BJR-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 JEFFREY A UTTECHT, 14 Respondent.

15 Petitioner David Bagby, who is proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se, filed a Petition 16 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 5. In his Petition, Petitioner named 17 the State of Washington as Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the 18 “person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham 19 v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 20 1989). According to his Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Coyote Ridge Corrections 21 Center (“CRCC”) in Connell, Washington. See Dkt. 5. The Superintendent of CRCC is Jeffrey 22 A. Uttecht. 23

24 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Jeffrey A. Uttecht as the 2 Respondent in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 3 Dated this 12th day of November, 2020. 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)

Bagby v. Uttecht, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagby-v-uttecht-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack