Case Information
*1 Case 1:25-cv-22094-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2025 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 25-cv-22094-ALTMAN MAHSA PARVIZ ,
Petitioner ,
v .
SAMANTHA SERRANO, WARDEN
OF FEDERAL DETENTION
CENTER MIAMI and WILLIAM
LOTHROP, III, DIRECTOR OF
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS ,
Respondents .
____________________________________/
ORDER
The Petitioner, Mahsa Parviz, has filed an Ex Parte Motion for Automatic Substitution of Successor Respondents (“Motion”) [ECF No. 8]. Parviz says that “Samantha Serrano”—one of the Respondents—“is no longer the Warden” at Federal Detention Center (“FDC”) Miami. Id. at 1. She therefore asks us to substitute in the new Warden of FDC Miami. Ibid .
Since the “denial of a habeas petition for failure to name the proper respondent would give an unreasonably narrow reading to the habeas corpus statute[,]” courts may “order substitution for the proper respondents[.]” Mayorga v. Meade , 2024 WL 4298815, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2024) (Bloom, J.) (cleaned up). And that’s what we’ll do here. When a petitioner (like Parviz) challenges her “present physical confinement,” the Supreme Court has held that “the immediate custodian, not the supervisory official who exercises legal control, is the proper respondent.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). Parviz is detained at FDC Miami, so her immediate custodian is Roger D. Morris, the *2 Case 1:25-cv-22094-RKA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2025 Page 2 of 2
Acting Warden. We therefore ORDER AND ADJUDGE that the Clerk shall SUBSTITUTE in Acting Warden Roger D. Morris as the Respondent in this case. [1]
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 19, 2025. _________________________________ ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Mahsa Parviz, pro se
Noticing 2241/Bivens U.S. Attorney
Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov
[1] One more thing. Since Parviz labeled her Motion “ ex parte ,” the Clerk filed it under seal. Motion [ECF No. 8] at 1. We’ll leave it under seal because the Motion appears to contain confidential information—like email addresses and phone numbers—that should not be on the publicly available docket. But, if Parviz wants to file any future document under seal, Parviz must comply with Local Rule 5.4, which requires her to file “a motion to file under seal that sets forth the factual and legal basis for departing from the policy that Court filings are public and that describes the information or documents to be sealed (the ‘proposed sealed material’) with as much particularity as possible, but without attaching or revealing the content of the proposed sealed material.” S.D. F LA . L.R. 5.4(b)(1) (emphasis added). 2