Clark v. Uttecht

W.D. Washington

Clark v. Uttecht

DecidedMarch 12, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-05054

StatusUnknown

This text of Clark v. Uttecht (Clark 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

Clark 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 ANTAEUS LAURENT CLARK, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5054-RBL-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 WASHINGTON STATE, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Antaeus Laurent Clark, who is proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition 17 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 5. In his Petition, 18 Petitioner named the State of Washington as Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a 19 habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also 20 § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 21 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). According to his Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Coyote 22 Ridge Corrections Center (“CRCC”) in Connell, Washington. See Dkt. 5. The Superintendent of 23 CRCC is Jeffrey A. Uttecht. 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 4 Dated this 12th day of March, 2020.

5 A 6 David W. Christel 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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 ANTAEUS LAURENT CLARK, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5054-RBL-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 WASHINGTON STATE, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Antaeus Laurent Clark, who is proceeding pro se, filed an Amended Petition 17 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 5. In his Petition, 18 Petitioner named the State of Washington as Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a 19 habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also 20 § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 21 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). According to his Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Coyote 22 Ridge Corrections Center (“CRCC”) in Connell, Washington. See Dkt. 5. The Superintendent of 23 CRCC is Jeffrey A. Uttecht. 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 4 Dated this 12th day of March, 2020.

5 A 6 David W. Christel 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack