Crenshaw v. Maldonado ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY CRENSHAW, : Petitioner : : No. 1:22-cv-02009 v. : : (Judge Rambo) OFFICER MALDONADO, : Respondent1 : ORDER AND NOW, on this 15th day of June 2023, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum accompanying this Order, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner Anthony Crenshaw’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case. s/ Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge 1 The Court observes that Crenshaw is incarcerated in USP Canaan and thus the appropriate (and only) respondent would be the warden of that prison. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004) (“Whenever a . . . habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”). According to Respondent, the correct respondent is Acting Warden Eric Rokosky. (See Doc. No. 18 at 2 n.1.) Because Crenshaw’s Section 2241 petition must be dismissed, the Court declines to sua sponte adjust the caption and parties in this case.