(HC) Sensabaugh v. Campbell

E.D. California

(HC) Sensabaugh v. Campbell

DecidedJanuary 6, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-01371

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(HC) Sensabaugh v. Campbell, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN SENSABAUGH, No. 1:22-cv-01371-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND J AND NAME PROPER RESPONDENT , (Doc. No. 5) 14 CAMPBELL, Warden, ORDER SUBSTITUTING WARDEN 15 Respondent. CAMPBELL AS RESPONDENT 16 17 On October 25, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 }} § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). The Court advised Petitioner that the petition failed to name a proper 19 | respondent and granted Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend to name a proper respondent. 20 | (Doc. No. 5). Petitioner moves to amend the Petition to name Warden Campbell as Respondent 21 | in this matter. (Doc. No. 6). A warden has “day-to-day control over” a petitioner and is a proper 22 || respondent in a habeas action. Brittingham vy. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Petition (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED. Warden Campbell 25 | hereby SUBSTITUTED as Respondent in this matter. 26 Dated: _ January 6, 2023 oe Zh. Sareh Zackte 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN SENSABAUGH, No. 1:22-cv-01371-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND J AND NAME PROPER RESPONDENT , (Doc. No. 5) 14 CAMPBELL, Warden, ORDER SUBSTITUTING WARDEN 15 Respondent. CAMPBELL AS RESPONDENT 16 17 On October 25, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 }} § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). The Court advised Petitioner that the petition failed to name a proper 19 | respondent and granted Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend to name a proper respondent. 20 | (Doc. No. 5). Petitioner moves to amend the Petition to name Warden Campbell as Respondent 21 | in this matter. (Doc. No. 6). A warden has “day-to-day control over” a petitioner and is a proper 22 || respondent in a habeas action. Brittingham vy. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 Petitioner’s Motion to Amend the Petition (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED. Warden Campbell 25 | hereby SUBSTITUTED as Respondent in this matter. 26 Dated: _ January 6, 2023 oe Zh. Sareh Zackte 7 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 38 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Sensabaugh v. Campbell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-sensabaugh-v-campbell-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack