Larson v. Uttecht

W.D. Washington

Larson v. Uttecht

DecidedJanuary 12, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-01778

StatusUnknown

This text of Larson v. Uttecht (Larson 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

Larson v. Uttecht, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DANIEL KRISTOPHER LARSON, CASE NO. 2:20-CV-01778-MJP-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Daniel Kristopher Larson, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 4. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State 18 of Washington as Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person 19 who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United 20 States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 21 According to his Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center 22 (“CRCC”) in Connell, Washington. See Dkt. 4. The Superintendent of CRCC is Jeffrey A. 23 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 Dated this 12th day of January, 2021. 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 DANIEL KRISTOPHER LARSON, CASE NO. 2:20-CV-01778-MJP-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Daniel Kristopher Larson, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 4. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State 18 of Washington as Respondent. See id. The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person 19 who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United 20 States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 21 According to his Petition, Petitioner is currently confined at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center 22 (“CRCC”) in Connell, Washington. See Dkt. 4. The Superintendent of CRCC is Jeffrey A. 23 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 Dated this 12th day of January, 2021. 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)

Larson v. Uttecht, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larson-v-uttecht-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack