Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MEDRANO v. ENTREKIN, 4:15-CV-1477-VEH-JHE. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. Alabama Number: infdco20151007903 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS , District Judge . On August 27, 2015, Petitioner Piterson R. Martinez Medrano ("Medrano") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. (Doc. 1). Medrano is incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). ( Id. ). In his petition, Medrano named Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin as Respondent. ( Id. ). Respondent now moves to s
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On August 27, 2015, Petitioner Piterson R. Martinez Medrano ("Medrano") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Medrano is incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center, in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). (Id.). In his petition, Medrano named Etowah County Sheriff Todd Entrekin as Respondent. (Id.). Respondent now moves to substitute Scott Hassell, Warden of the Etowah County Detention Center, as the proper respondent. (Doc. 3).

The United States Supreme Court has held that, "[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent . . . ." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). Other remote supervisory officials are not proper respondents. Id. at 435. Because Scott Hassell is warden of the Etowah County Detention Facility, where Medrano is incarcerated, and, therefore, is Medrano's immediate custodian, he is the proper respondent and Sheriff Entrekin is not.

Based on the foregoing, the Respondent's motion to substitute a party, (doc. 3), is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERM Sheriff Entrekin and SUBSTITUTE Warden Scott Hassell in his place. It if FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent has fourteen days from the date of this order to file his response to the order to show cause, (doc. 2).

DONE and ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer