Manjinder S. v. Christopher Chestnut et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANJINDER S., 12 Petitioner, No. 1:26-cv-01892-TLN-SCR 13 A # 068-100-038 14 v. ORDER 15 CHRISTOPHER CHESTNUT et al., Respondents.1 16 17 18 /// 19 1 Respondents argue that only Petitioner’s immediate custodian is a proper respondent and 20 request that the Court dismiss all other Respondents from this case. (ECF No. 13 at 1 n.1.) In “core” habeas challenges to present physical confinement “the default rule is that the proper 21 respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the…