Howard Ray Pruitt v. State of Kansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

HOWARD RAY PRUITT, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 26-3058-JWL STATE OF KANSAS1,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Howard Ray Pruitt, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas. With his petition, Petitioner also filed a motion for leave to file additional pages as part of the required, court-approved form in order to set out Grounds V through VIII of this matter. (Doc. 2.) The Court appreciates Petitioner’s efforts to comply with all of the rules applicable to federal habeas proceedings. A review of the docket, however, shows that the Clerk has filed the pages in question as part of the petition. (See Doc. 1.) Therefore, the motion will be denied as moot.

Petitioner also has filed a motion seeking a stay of this matter while he pursues state-court remedies on currently unexhausted grounds for federal habeas relief. (Doc. 3.) The Court will defer ruling on that motion until Petitioner complies with the notice of deficiency (Doc. 5) which has Petitioner has named the State of Kansas as Respondent in this action, but the proper respondent in a federal habeas action by a state prisoner is the person who has custody over the petitioner. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“[I]n habeas challenges to present physical confinement . . . the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.”). Thus, Gloria Geither, the current interim warden of Lansing Correctional Facility, where Petitioner is confined, is hereby substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(d) and 81(a)(4). been mailed to Plaintiff today.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gloria Geither, Interim Warden of Lansing Correctional Facility, where Petitioner is confined, is substituted as Respondent in this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for permission to include additional pages (Doc. 2) is denied as moot because the clerk filed the additional pages as part of the petition when this matter was docketed. (See Doc. 1.) The Court defers ruling on the motion to stay (Doc. 3) until Petitioner complies with the notice of deficiency (Doc. 5) issued earlier this day.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 23rd day of March, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge