From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sensabaugh v. Campbell

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 6, 2023
1:22-cv-01371-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023)

Opinion

1:22-cv-01371-HBK

01-06-2023

STEVEN SENSABAUGH, Petitioner, v. CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND AND NAME PROPER RESPONDENT

(Doc. No. 5)

ORDER SUBSTITUTING WARDEN CAMPBELL AS RESPONDENT

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 respondent and granted Petitioner leave to file a motion to amend to name a proper respondent. (Doc. No. 5). Petitioner moves to amend the Petition to name Warden Campbell as Respondent in this matter. (Doc. No. 6). A warden has “day-to-day control over” a petitioner and is a proper respondent in a habeas action. Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Petitioner's Motion to Amend the Petition (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED. Warden Campbell hereby SUBSTITUTED as Respondent in this matter.


Summaries of

Sensabaugh v. Campbell

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jan 6, 2023
1:22-cv-01371-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023)
Case details for

Sensabaugh v. Campbell

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN SENSABAUGH, Petitioner, v. CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jan 6, 2023

Citations

1:22-cv-01371-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023)