stating that “[t]he logic of this rule rests in an understanding that the warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner and . . . can produce the actual body”
How later courts described this case
- stating that “[t]he logic of this rule rests in an understanding that the warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner and . . . can produce the actual body”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SEAN A. FAIRWEATHER,
Petitioner CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00790
v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)
BAINBRIDGE, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM
On November 21, 2025, the Court received and docketed a second amended petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from Sean A. Fairweather
(“Fairweather”), a prisoner confined at the Lackawanna County Prison1. (Doc. 29). On
November 26, 2025, the Court received a letter requesting that the second amended petition
be read as a supplemental petition. (Doc. 30). The Court will screen this second amended
petition, will dismiss all respondents except Warden Timothy Betti (“Betti”), substitute Jasen
Bohinski (“Bohinski”) for Betti as Respondent in this action and will serve the amended
petition and the second amened petition on Respondent Bohinski.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 5, 2025, the Court received and docketed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in which Fairweather alleged that a February 25, 2025 resentencing violates the double
jeopardy, due process, and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. (Doc. 1). Fairweather
1 Fairweather has since been relocated to the State Correctional Institution in Dallas,
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 21).
sought relief from the February 25, 2025 resentencing. (Doc. 1). In doing so, he named six
respondents who were employed by Lackawanna County: (1) Bainbridge; (2) Doug Scott
(“Scott”); (3) A.L. Munley (“Munley”); (4) Eugene Eiden (“Eiden”); (5) Melissa Colon
(“Colon”); and (6) Michael Ossant (“Ossant”). (Doc. 1, at 1-2).
The Court issued an administrative order on May 5, 2025 requiring Fairweather to
pay the filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3). Fairweather paid the
outstanding filing fee. (Doc. 4). The Court screened the petition pursuant to Rule 4. (Doc. 7;
Doc. 8). The Court dismissed the petition for failing to name a proper respondent and granted
Fairweather the opportunity to file an amended petition. (Doc. 7; Doc. 8).
On June 27, 2025, the Court received and docketed an amended petition. (Doc. 10).
This amended petition named the same six respondents and Respondent Betti, the Warden
at Lackawanna County Prison, and again alleged that a February 25, 2025 resentencing
violated the double jeopardy, due process, and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
(Doc. 10). On June 30, 2025, the Court entered an order setting forth the limitations of filing
a subsequent Section 2254 petition and granting Fairweather the opportunity to withdraw his
petition if it was not complete. (Doc. 12).
On July 17, 2025, the Court received and docketed another amended petition and a
notice of election form requesting that the court withdraw Fairweather’s petition: “I chose to
withdraw the petition so that I may file one, all-inclusive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
within the one-year limit for filing such a petition.” (Doc. 15; Doc. 17). This amended petition
named the following eight respondents: (1) Betti; (2) Scott; (3) Pennsylvania State Parole
Supervisor; (4) Munley; (5) Eiden; (6) Colon; (7) Ossant; and (8) Andrew Krowaik
(“Krowaik”), Assistant District Attorney for Lackawanna County. (Doc. 15, at 2). On
November 14, 2025, the court screened this petition and dismissed all respondents except
Respondent Betti and served the amended petition on Respondent Betti. (Doc. 26; Doc. 27).
On November 21, 2025, the court received and docketed a second amended petition
naming the following twelve respondents: (1) Bainbridge; (2) Scott; (3) Pennsylvania Board
of Probation and Parole; (4) Colon; (5) Judge Michael J. Barrasse (“Barrasse”); (6) Jasen
Bohinski (“Bohinski”), Superintendent for SCI-Dallas; (7) Krowiak; (8) Betti; (9) Eugene
Eiden; (10) Lackawanna County; (11) Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office and
(12) all citizens of the state, county, or municipality that employs them. (Doc. 29).
On November 26, 2025 and November 28, 2025, the Court received and docketed
letters from Fairweather requesting that the second amended petition be deemed a
supplemental petition to the amended petition served on November 14, 2025. (Doc. 30; Doc.
31).
II. DISCUSSION
Under Rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
a district court must promptly review a petition and dismiss it if it is plain from the face of the
petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4.
In 2004, the Supreme Court made it clear that habeas corpus petitions must be filed
against a person:
The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper
respondent to a habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the
petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show
cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained”).
The consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates
that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas
petition. This custodian, moreover, is “the person” with the ability to produce
the prisoner’s body before the habeas court. Ibid.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).
The Third Circuit has upheld the general rule that a petitioner “should name his
warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.” Anariba v. Director
Hudson County Correctional Center, 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (stating that “[t]he logic of
this rule rests in an understanding that the warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner
and . . . can produce the actual body”).
At the time his case was initiated, Fairweather was housed at Lackawanna County
Prison making Betti the proper Respondent in this action. However, since initiating the
action, Fairweather was transferred to SCI-Dallas. (Doc. 21). The court will therefore
substitute the appropriate Respondent in this case as Bohinski, Superintendent for SCI-Dallas.
As such, all Respondents except Bohinski will be dismissed as parties to this action.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss all Respondents as parties to this
action except Bohinski. The amended petition and the second amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus, which will serve as a supplemental petition, will be served upon Respondent
Bohinski and a copy of this order will be forwarded to Betti considering he was served on
November 14, 2025.
Dated: December 5, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge