Thompson v. State of Tennessee Department of Parole et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve copies of the petition and this Order upon the Attorney General for the State of Tennessee. Since it does not plainly appear from the face of the petition that it should be summar ily dismissed, Respondent is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 08/11/2017. (Copy of Memorandum and Order and Petition mailed to Attorney General for the State of Tennessee) (Copy of Memorandum and Order mailed to Matthew Allen Thompson) (CAT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
MATTHEW ALLEN THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT
OF PAROLE and HERBERT H.
SLATERY, III, Attorney General for the
State of Tennessee,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-CV-212-JRG-SKL

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Matthew Allen Thompson (“Petitioner”), brings this fee-paid pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254[Doc. 1]. Petitioner is challenging the legality of his
confinement pursuant to his 1983 Hamilton County, Tennessee convictions for second-degree
burglary and for being a habitual criminal [Id.]. Petitioner is serving a life sentence under those
convictions [Id.].
The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve copies of the petition and this Order upon the
Attorney General for the State of Tennessee.1 Since it does not plainly appear from the face of

1

The proper respondent in a habeas corpus case is the state officer having custody of a
petitioner. See Rule 2, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District
Courts. Typically, that individual is the warden of the prison wherein a petitioner is confined.
See Advisory Committee Notes to 1976 Adoption (commenting that the proper person to be
served in the usual case is either the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is
incarcerated or the chief officer in charge of state penal institutions). In this case, Petitioner does
not identify the prison wherein he is confined. The return address on the envelope containing his
petition listed Petitioner’s address as Goodlettesville, TN 37072-8940. The website of the
Tennessee Department of Correction (“TDOC”) does not show a TDOC prison located in

the petition that it should be summarily dismissed, Respondent is ORDERED to answer or
otherwise respond to the petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent should address specifically whether the
petition was timely filed and whether Petitioner has exhausted his available state court remedies.
28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d), 2254(b).
Although a reply is not necessary, if Petitioner wishes to file a reply, he SHALL file that
reply within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent files his answer with the Court. Rule 5(e)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Any reply should not exceed twenty-five pages,
must directly reply to the points and authorities in the Warden’s answer, and must not to be used
to reargue the points and authorities included in the petition or to present any new issues. See
E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(b), and (c).
SO ORDERED.

s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Goodlettsville. The only other address the Court has been able to find for petitioner is the
Wartburg, Tennessee address listed as Petitioner’s address in State v. Thompson, No.
E201601562CCAR3CD, 2017 WL 2859816 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 5, 2017). Morgan County
Correctional Complex, a TDOC facility, is located in Wartburg, Tennessee. See Online
https://www.tn.gov/correction/article/tdoc-morgan-county-correctional-complex (last visited
Aug. 10, 2017). The Court will substitute Petitioner’s current custodian as the correct
respondent when Petitioner identifies that person.
.
2