Ford v. Rickard

M.D. Pennsylvania

Ford v. Rickard

DecidedJune 6, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-01557

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Ford v. Rickard, (M.D. Pa. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS FORD, : No. 3:24-CV-1557 Petitioner ; . (Judge Munley) Vv. : WARDEN FMC ROCHESTER, ' □ Respondent :

ORDER AND NOW, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner Francis Ford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Date: (| L l es BY OURT:

JUDGE JULIA K.MUNLEX Unite States oe 1 When Ford filed the instant petition, he was incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill named the warden of that facility (“VWWarden Rickard”) as Respondent. (See Doc. 1 at 1). Ford has since been transferred to FMC Rochester. The court will therefore substitute the appropriate Respondent in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004 (noting that, in federal habeas proceedings, proper respondent is “the person who has custod\ over [the petitioner]” (alteration in original)); Barry v. Bergen Cnty. Probation Dep’t, 128 F.3c 152, 162 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Crt. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973 (“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the persor who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.”)).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS FORD, : No. 3:24-CV-1557 Petitioner ; . (Judge Munley) Vv. : WARDEN FMC ROCHESTER, ' □ Respondent :

ORDER AND NOW, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner Francis Ford's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Date: (| L l es BY OURT:

JUDGE JULIA K.MUNLEX Unite States oe 1 When Ford filed the instant petition, he was incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill named the warden of that facility (“VWWarden Rickard”) as Respondent. (See Doc. 1 at 1). Ford has since been transferred to FMC Rochester. The court will therefore substitute the appropriate Respondent in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004 (noting that, in federal habeas proceedings, proper respondent is “the person who has custod\ over [the petitioner]” (alteration in original)); Barry v. Bergen Cnty. Probation Dep’t, 128 F.3c 152, 162 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Crt. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973 (“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the persor who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.”)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ford v. Rickard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-rickard-pamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack