Mathews v. Rios
Filing
4
OPINION and ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 7/14/2011. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. The Clerk SHALL cause a copy of the § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) to be served upon Respondent. 2. Respondent SHALL file an answer, motion, or other respo nse under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts within sixty (60) days after service of the Petition. Respondent should address any facts which would establish whether Petitioner's claims are unti mely or procedurally barred. In addition, Respondent should address the merits of Petitioners claims and otherwise fully comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 3. Petitioner MAY file a re ply to Respondents response within thirty (30) days of being served with Respondent's response. 4. Petitioner SHALL serve upon the Respondent a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. 5. Petit ioner has filed a Letter to the Court indicating that he has started the procedure to have his $5 filing fee paid (Doc. 3), however the Court has not yet received the fee. Petitioner is GRANTED 15 days to either ensure the delivery of the filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, or risk having his Petition dismissed. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 14 July, 2011 02:57:06 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
PRESSE MATHEWS, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
RICARDO RIOS, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
11-cv-1245
OPINION & ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Presse Mathews, Jr.’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and Exhibits and Referenced
Pleadings in Support (Doc. 2). On September 8, 2004, Petitioner pled guilty to
possession of a firearm by felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. 1 at 2).
At sentencing, the district court determined that Petitioner had previously
committed three violent felonies and, as a result, sentenced him to the statutory
minimum of 180 months pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18
U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). (Doc. 1 at 2). Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, in which he
argued that one of the previous felonies of which he was convicted did not qualify as
a “violent felony” within the meaning of the ACCA. United States v. Mathews, 453
F.3d 830, 831 (7th Cir. 2006). The Seventh Circuit affirmed upon a finding that the
previous felony was such an offense. Id. at 837. Petitioner subsequently filed a
Motion to Vacate, Correct, or Amend Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in
which he again attacked the determination that his previous offense was a violent
felony for the purposes of the ACCA; however this Motion was also denied on April
9, 2007. Mathews v. United States, 550 F.Supp.2d 842 (C.D.Ill. 2007).
In his instant Petition, Petitioner argues that the Supreme Court decision of
Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008), clarified the meaning of the term
“violent felony” within the ACCA, that the new substantive rule should be applied
retroactively, and that he is entitled to seek relief pursuant to § 2241 because
recourse to § 2255 is no longer available. (Doc. 1 at 3-4). Petitioner also points out
that his sentence pursuant to the ACCA exceeded the statutory maximum for the
crime to which he pleaded guilty, and that therefore there is a fundamental defect
in his sentence which must be corrected. (Doc. 1 at 4); see also In re Davenport, 147
F.3d 605, 611 (“A federal prisoner should be permitted to seek habeas corpus only if
he had no reasonable opportunity to obtain earlier judicial correction of a
fundamental defect in his conviction or sentence because the law changed after his
first 2255 motion.”).
The Court, in its discretion, applies the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the District Courts to this case. See Rule 1(b) Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the District Courts.1
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the District Courts, the Court has examined the
Petition and cannot determine that Petitioner’s claim has no merit.
Therefore,
Respondent will be directed to respond to the Petition.
See also Hudson v. Helman, 948 F.Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (Rule 4 takes
precedence over § 2243’s deadlines and gives court discretion to set deadlines)
(citing Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653-54 (7th Cir. 1994) (Rule 4 is
superseding statute over § 2243); Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 431 (N.D. Ill.
1985) (court may apply § 2254 Rules to § 2241 cases)).
1
2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
The Clerk SHALL cause a copy of the § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) to be served
upon Respondent.
2.
Respondent SHALL file an answer, motion, or other response under Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts within
sixty (60) days after service of the Petition. Respondent should address any facts
which would establish whether Petitioner’s claims are untimely or procedurally
barred. In addition, Respondent should address the merits of Petitioner’s claims
and otherwise fully comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts.
3.
Petitioner MAY file a reply to Respondent’s response within thirty (30) days
of being served with Respondent’s response.
4.
Petitioner SHALL serve upon the Respondent a copy of every further
pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court.
5.
Petitioner has filed a Letter to the Court indicating that he has started the
procedure to have his $5 filing fee paid (Doc. 3), however the Court has not yet
received the fee. Petitioner is GRANTED 15 days to either ensure the delivery of
the filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, or risk having his
Petition dismissed.
3
Entered this 13th day of July, 2011.
s/ Joe B. McDade
JOE BILLY McDADE
United States Senior District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?