Fairweather v. Bainbridge et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SEAN A. FAIRWEATHER,
Petitioner
v.
BAINBRIDGE, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00790
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
MEMORANDUM
On July 17, 2025, the Court received and docketed an 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. 15). That same day, the Court
received a notice of election from Fairweather requesting that his petition be withdrawn.
(Doc. 17). Because the request to withdraw the petition and the amended petition were filed
concurrently, the Court construes the request to withdraw the petition as a request to
withdraw the previously filed petitions and to treat the amended petition as the operative
pleading in this action.2 The Court will screen this amended petition, will dismiss all
respondents except Warden Timothy Betti (“Betti”), and will serve the amened petition on
Respondent Betti.
1 Fairweather has since been relocated to the State Correctional Institution in Dallas,
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 21).
2 If it is Fairweather’s intention to withdraw the petition docketed on July 17, 2025, he
must file a letter expressing such.
Case 3:25-cv-00790-KM-EW Document 26 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 4

2
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
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
Case 3:25-cv-00790-KM-EW Document 26 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 4

3
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).
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”).
Here, the only appropriate respondent in this action is the Warden of Lackawanna
County Prison, Respondent Betti. Therefore, the other seven individuals named as
respondents will be dismissed from the action.
Case 3:25-cv-00790-KM-EW Document 26 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 4

4
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court will dismiss Bainbridge, Scott, Munley, Eiden,
Colon, Ossant, and Krowaik as parties to this action. The amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus will be served upon Respondent Betti.
Dated: November 14, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00790-KM-EW Document 26 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 4