Wright v. Pierce County of the State of Washington

W.D. Washington

Wright v. Pierce County of the State of Washington

DecidedApril 26, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-05621

StatusUnknown

This text of Wright v. Pierce County of the State of Washington (Wright v. Pierce County of the State of Washington) 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

Wright v. Pierce County of the State of Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOSEPH SCOTT WRIGHT, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05621-LK-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 SUBSTITUTE PROPER ED TROYER, 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 Substitute Proper Respondent. Dkt. 20. In the Motion, Respondent 17 informs the Court that Petitioner is no longer incarcerated at the Pierce County Jail and, 18 therefore, Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer is no longer the proper respondent in this habeas 19 action. See Dkt. 20. Respondent requests the court substitute the proper respondent— 20 Superintendent Jason Bennett at Stafford Creek Corrections Center—in this matter. Id. Upon 21 review, the Court agrees Superintendent Bennett is the proper respondent and grants the motion. 22 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the 23 petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th 24 1 Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). At the time Petitioner filed his 2 Petition, he was being held in the Pierce County Jail as a pretrial detainee. See Dkt. 1. However, 3 in November 2022, Petitioner was transferred to the custody of the Department of Corrections to 4 begin serving his state sentence. See Dkt. 20. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Stafford

5 Creek Corrections Center. See id. As such, the Superintendent of Stafford Creek Corrections 6 Center is now the proper respondent in this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 7 (2004) (the person having custody of the person detained for purposes of § 2254 is typically the 8 warden of the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated). 9 The motion to substitute (Dkt. 20) is granted. The Clerk is directed to substitute the 10 correct respondent—Superintendent Jason Bennett at Stafford Creek Corrections Center—in this 11 matter. 12 Dated this 26th day of April, 2023. 13 A 14 15 Grady J. Leupold 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 JOSEPH SCOTT WRIGHT, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05621-LK-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 SUBSTITUTE PROPER ED TROYER, 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 Substitute Proper Respondent. Dkt. 20. In the Motion, Respondent 17 informs the Court that Petitioner is no longer incarcerated at the Pierce County Jail and, 18 therefore, Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer is no longer the proper respondent in this habeas 19 action. See Dkt. 20. Respondent requests the court substitute the proper respondent— 20 Superintendent Jason Bennett at Stafford Creek Corrections Center—in this matter. Id. Upon 21 review, the Court agrees Superintendent Bennett is the proper respondent and grants the motion. 22 The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the “person who has custody over [the 23 petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243; Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378 (9th 24 1 Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). At the time Petitioner filed his 2 Petition, he was being held in the Pierce County Jail as a pretrial detainee. See Dkt. 1. However, 3 in November 2022, Petitioner was transferred to the custody of the Department of Corrections to 4 begin serving his state sentence. See Dkt. 20. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Stafford

5 Creek Corrections Center. See id. As such, the Superintendent of Stafford Creek Corrections 6 Center is now the proper respondent in this matter. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 7 (2004) (the person having custody of the person detained for purposes of § 2254 is typically the 8 warden of the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated). 9 The motion to substitute (Dkt. 20) is granted. The Clerk is directed to substitute the 10 correct respondent—Superintendent Jason Bennett at Stafford Creek Corrections Center—in this 11 matter. 12 Dated this 26th day of April, 2023. 13 A 14 15 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wright v. Pierce County of the State of Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-pierce-county-of-the-state-of-washington-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack