Stanfield v. Ferguson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5663-JCC-DWC Petitioner, ORDER SUBSTITUTING v. RESPONDENT Respondent.

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

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