MAYNARD v. CHRISMAN, CIV 13-027-RAW-KEW. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20130910e67
Visitors: 2
Filed: Sep. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 09, 2013
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER RONALD A. WHITE, District Judge. Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus (Docket No. 28), again challenging the court's substitution of the warden at his facility as the respondent in this case and claiming the proper respondents are the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and the Executive Director of Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. The court previously has explained to petitioner that the proper respondent in a habeas petition is the petitio
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER RONALD A. WHITE, District Judge. Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus (Docket No. 28), again challenging the court's substitution of the warden at his facility as the respondent in this case and claiming the proper respondents are the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and the Executive Director of Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. The court previously has explained to petitioner that the proper respondent in a habeas petition is the petition..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
RONALD A. WHITE, District Judge.
Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus (Docket No. 28), again challenging the court's substitution of the warden at his facility as the respondent in this case and claiming the proper respondents are the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and the Executive Director of Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board. The court previously has explained to petitioner that the proper respondent in a habeas petition is the petitioner's custodian (Docket No. 9). See Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 906 (10th Cir. 1995) ("The law is well established that the proper respondent to a habeas action is the habeas petitioner's custodian."); Von Kahl v. United States, 321 Fed. Appx. 724, 727 n.1, 2009 WL 799024, at *1 (Mar. 27, 2009) (unpublished) ("A § 2241 petition is properly addressed to the person with custody over the petitioner," pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242).
ACCORDINGLY, petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus (Docket No. 28) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
