Bell v. Schwartz et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/9/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
TERRELL BELL #B17431,
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY DAVIS, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 10 C 4334
USCA No. 10-2979
(see also No. 09 C 7616)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court’s May 4 memorandum order explained why the very
recently submitted motion by pro se federal habeas petitioner
Terrell Bell (“Bell”) would not be entertained.

but a further

look at that motion has called this Court’s attention to a source
of potential confusion that should be cleared up.
Bell has listed two case numbers, 09 C 7616 and 10 C 4334,
in the caption of his handwritten motion.

But they are really

the same case, although this court property listed only the 2010
case number in both its July 30, 2010 memorandum order and the
current May 4, 2011 memorandum order:
1.

Bell’s original Petition carried the 2009 case

number, and it was promptly transferred sua sponte to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois because Bell was in custody in that District and
the respondent custodian was located there.
2.

When the case was then retransferred to this

District with this Court’s consent, it was assigned a new
10 C 4334 case number as a procedural matter because the
2009 case had been closed statistically.
Hence if and to the extent that Bell’s current motion has also
been docketed in the 2009 case as the result of his captioning,
it is ordered that it be stricken from that docket.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

May 9, 2011

2