Campbell

(HC) Sensabaugh v. Campbell

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 20231:22-cv-01371California209 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEVEN SENSABAUGH, No. 1:22-cv-01371-HBK Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND

J AND NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

, (Doc. No. 5) CAMPBELL, Warden,

ORDER SUBSTITUTING WARDEN

Respondent. CAMPBELL AS RESPONDENT 16 On October 25, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. }} § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). The Court advised Petitioner that the petition failed to name a proper 19 respondent and granted Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend to name a proper respondent. 20 (Doc. No. 5). Petitioner moves to amend the Petition to name Warden Campbell as Respondent 21 in this matter. (Doc. No. 6). A warden has “day-to-day control over” a petitioner and is a proper 22 || respondent in a habeas action. Brittingham vy. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Petitioner’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.