Stanfield v. Ferguson

W.D. Washington

Stanfield v. Ferguson

DecidedAugust 13, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-05663

StatusUnknown

This text of Stanfield v. Ferguson (Stanfield v. Ferguson) 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

Stanfield v. Ferguson, (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 KEVIN A. STANFIELD, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5663-JCC-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER SUBSTITUTING 12 v. RESPONDENT 13 BOB FERGUSON, 14 Respondent.

15 Petitioner Kevin A. Stanfield, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State 17 of Washington as Respondent. See id. 18 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the 19 petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th 20 Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). This individual typically is the 21 warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 22 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name his probation or 23 parole officer “and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency, or the state 24 1 correctional agency, as appropriate.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). In other 2 cases, the petitioner may name the state attorney general. Id.; Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 3 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 Based on the address provided by Petitioner, it appears he has been released and may no

5 longer be in custody. Dkt. 1. However, it is not clear if Petitioner is on probation or parole. See 6 id. As Petitioner’s custody status is unclear, the Court finds it appropriate to substitute Bob 7 Ferguson, the Attorney General of the State of Washington, as the Respondent. If any party 8 believes that Mr. Ferguson is not the proper Respondent, the party shall file a motion to 9 substitute the correct respondent. 10 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Bob Ferguson as the Respondent 11 in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 12 Dated this 13th day of August, 2020. 13 A 14 David W. Christel 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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 KEVIN A. STANFIELD, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5663-JCC-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER SUBSTITUTING 12 v. RESPONDENT 13 BOB FERGUSON, 14 Respondent.

15 Petitioner Kevin A. Stanfield, who is proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. In his Petition, Petitioner named the State 17 of Washington as Respondent. See id. 18 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the 19 petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th 20 Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). This individual typically is the 21 warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 22 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). If the petitioner is on probation or parole, he may name his probation or 23 parole officer “and the official in charge of the parole or probation agency, or the state 24 1 correctional agency, as appropriate.” Ortiz-Sandoval, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). In other 2 cases, the petitioner may name the state attorney general. Id.; Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 3 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 Based on the address provided by Petitioner, it appears he has been released and may no

5 longer be in custody. Dkt. 1. However, it is not clear if Petitioner is on probation or parole. See 6 id. As Petitioner’s custody status is unclear, the Court finds it appropriate to substitute Bob 7 Ferguson, the Attorney General of the State of Washington, as the Respondent. If any party 8 believes that Mr. Ferguson is not the proper Respondent, the party shall file a motion to 9 substitute the correct respondent. 10 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to substitute Bob Ferguson as the Respondent 11 in this action. The Clerk of Court is also directed to update the case title. 12 Dated this 13th day of August, 2020. 13 A 14 David W. Christel 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stanfield v. Ferguson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanfield-v-ferguson-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack