Sloan v. State of Washington

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00124-RAJ-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHERIFF PATTI COLE-TINDALL, RESPONDENT 13 Respondent. 14

15 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Before the Court is 16 Respondent’s Motion to Change Designated Respondent. Dkt. 21. In the Motion, Respondent 17 informs the Court that, since Petitioner is currently in the custody of the King County 18 Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, the proper respondent in this matter is Allen Nance, 19 Director of the King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. Id. at 1. Thus, 20 Respondent requests the Court substitute the proper respondent—Allen Nance, Director of the 21 King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention—in this matter. Id. Upon review, the 22 Court agrees Allen Nance is the proper Respondent and grants the motion. 23 24 1 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the 2 petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th 3 Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). At the time Petitioner filed his 4 Petition, he was being held in the King County Jail as a pretrial detainee. See Dkt. 1. As

5 Respondent rightly indicates, the King County Sheriff is not the custodian of inmates in the local 6 jail. Dkt. 21 at 1. Rather, Mr. Nance, in his role as Director of the King County Department of 7 Adult and Juvenile Detention, is the proper Respondent in this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 8 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (the person having custody of the person detained for purposes of § 9 2254 is typically the warden of the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated). 10 The Motion to Change Designated Respondent (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED. The Clerk is 11 directed to substitute the correct respondent—Allen Nance, Director of the King County 12 Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention—in this matter. Should there be a need to substitute 13 the correct respondent again in these proceedings, Respondent shall renew this Motion.1 14 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2023.

15 A 16 17 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22

23 1 In the Motion, Respondent informs the Court that Petitioner is scheduled to be sentenced in the King County Superior Court this month, May 2023. Dkt. 21 at 2. At that time, they posit, he will likely be transported to the 24 Washington State Department of Corrections and, thus, Mr. Nance will no longer be the proper respondent. Id.