Opinion
C23-6132-BHS-DWC
05-06-2024
DAMIAN BELANDER, Petitioner, v. DEAN MASON, Respondent.
ORDER
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on pro se petitioner Damian Belander's Motion for an Extension of Time, Dkt. 17, and on Respondent David Pedro's Motion to Substitute Respondent, Dkt. 19.
On April 12, 2024, Magistrate Judge David W. Christel entered a Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 16, recommending that the Court deny Belander's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Five days after Judge Christel entered the R&R, Belander filed a motion for an extension of time, seeking an additional 180 days to reply to Pedro's response, Dkt. 13, to the habeas petition. Pedro interprets this motion as seeking an extension of time to object to the R&R and does not oppose such an extension. Dkt. 18. The R&R was noted for consideration for May 3, 2024.
The deadline to reply to Pedro's response has expired, and Judge Christel entered the R&R before Belander sought an extension of time to file a reply. The Court accordingly interprets Belander's motion as seeking an extension of time to object to the R&R. The motion for an extension of time, Dkt. 17, is GRANTED in part. Belander shall file any objections to the R&R on or before Wednesday, July 5, 2024. If, by that date, Belander has still been unable to receive his “legal documents,” Dkt. 17 at 3, he may seek an additional extension. The R&R is RENOTED for July 19, 2024.
The motion to substitute seeks to substitute the respondent in this matter from Pedro, the Superintendent of the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, to Dean Mason, the Superintendent of the Washington Corrections Center. Dkt. 19 at 1. The motion explains that, when Belander filed his habeas petition, he was confined in Oregon pending his return to Washington to serve his Washington sentence. Id. While Belander was in Oregon, Pedro was his immediate custodian. Id. Belander has since been transferred to Washington, and his immediate custodian is now Mason. Id.
“[T]here is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition. This custodian . . . is ‘the person' with the ability to produce the prisoner's body before the habeas court.” Rumsfeldv. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); accord Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (“A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition.”).
The motion to substitute, Dkt. 19, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall substitute the respondent in this matter from David Pedro to Dean Mason.
IT IS SO ORDERED.