Mickens v. Smack

W.D. Washington

Mickens v. Smack

DecidedMay 21, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-05325

StatusUnknown

This text of Mickens v. Smack (Mickens v. Smack) 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

Mickens v. Smack, (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 RORY L. MICKENS, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5325-RBL-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 RON HAYNES, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Rory Mickens, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 8. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State of 18 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 Stafford Creek Corrections Center 22 (“SCCC”) in Aberdeen, Washington. See Dkt. The Superintendent of SCCC is Ron Haynes. 23 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Ron Haynes as the Respondent 24 in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 1 Dated this 21st day of May, 2020. 2 A 3 David W. Christel 4 United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 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 RORY L. MICKENS, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5325-RBL-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v.

13 RON HAYNES, 14 Respondent.

15 16 Petitioner Rory Mickens, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 8. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State of 18 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 Stafford Creek Corrections Center 22 (“SCCC”) in Aberdeen, Washington. See Dkt. The Superintendent of SCCC is Ron Haynes. 23 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Ron Haynes as the Respondent 24 in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 1 Dated this 21st day of May, 2020. 2 A 3 David W. Christel 4 United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mickens v. Smack, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mickens-v-smack-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack