Andreozzi v. Manager, Residential Reentry Mgmt. Seattle

Full title: ARMAND ANDREOZZI, Petitioner, v. MANAGER, RESIDENTIAL REENTRY MANAGEMENT…

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Oct 31, 2023

2:23-cv-01106-JNW-GJL (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-01106-JNW-GJL

10-31-2023

ARMAND ANDREOZZI, Petitioner, v. MANAGER, RESIDENTIAL REENTRY MANAGEMENT SEATTLE, Respondent.

Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SUBSTITUTING RESPONDENT

Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge

This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Before the Court is Respondent Trinetta Thompkins' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Dkt. 12. In the Motion, Respondent Thompkins informs the Court that, because Petitioner Armand Andreozzi is serving out his sentence at the Pioneer Fellowship House in connection with the Seattle Residential Reentry Management (“RRM”) field office, the Manager of the RRM field office in Seattle is the proper Respondent in this matter. Id. Upon review, the Court agrees the Manager of RRM Seattle is the proper Respondent and grants the Motion.

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 (9^th Cir. 1992); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). At the time Petitioner filed his Petition, he was being held at the Pioneer Fellowship House to serve out his federal sentence. See Dkt. 12 at 2. Respondent Thompkins currently serves as the Interim Director of the Pioneer Fellowship House. See id. at 3. However, as Respondent Thompkins indicates, Petitioner remains in the legal custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), and therefore the proper respondent in such circumstances is the corresponding RRM manager within the BOP. Id. at 2. As such, the Manager of RRM Seattle is the proper Respondent in this matter. See Nekvasil v. United States, No. 1:22-cv-617, 2022 WL 4115428, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2022) (finding the RRM Manager is the proper respondent for a habeas petition where petitioner is an inmate supervised by that RRM office).

The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to substitute the correct respondent-Manager, RRM Seattle-in this matter. Should there be a need to substitute the correct respondent again in these proceedings, Respondent or the United States Attorney's Office (Seattle) shall file a Motion to Substitute Respondent.