Ford v. Warden FMC Rochester

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01499
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FRANCIS FORD, : No. 3:24-CV-1499 Petitioner : (Judge Munley) V. 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: = i La /BY THE GOURT: \ / SS x JUDGEJULIA K. MUNKEY United States To 1 When Ford filed the instant petition, he wee incarcerated at FCI Schuvyikittand named th warden of that facility (“Warder: Rickard’) ass Respondent. (See Doc. 1 at 1). Ford has since been transferred to FMC Rochester. ‘The court will therefore substitute the appropriat 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.3 152, 162 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing Braden v. 30f7 Jud. Cir. Crt. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1972 (“The writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the perso who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody.”)).