Scott v. Rednour et al

Filing 37

MOTION by Respondent David Rednour for judgment - entry of a Rule 58 judgment (Blankenheim, Michael)

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
United States of America ex rel.,
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT,

)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
No. 11 C 3442
)
MIKE ATCHISON, Warden,
)
Menard Correctional Center,
)
The Honorable
)
Robert W. Gettleman,
Respondent.
)
Judge Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A RULE 58 JUDGMENT
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d), respondent MIKE ATCHISON moves
this Court to enter its judgment denying habeas corpus relief in a separate
document. In support, respondent states as follows:
1.

On August 2, 2012, this Court entered a memorandum opinion and

order denying petitioner Christopher Scott’s habeas corpus petition. See Doc. 34.
The Court also denied petitioner’s motion to issue subpoenas and declined to issue a
certificate of appealability. See id.
2.

Because this Court has denied habeas relief, it should set out its

judgment to that effect in a separate document.
3.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 provides, with immaterial

exceptions, that “[e]very judgment or amended judgment must be set out in a
separate document[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). The rule further provides that “[a]

party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required by
Rule 58(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d).
4.

The Seventh Circuit has “remind[ed] litigants that if the [district]

court has not entered a proper Rule 58 judgment on a separate document, the
parties should ask the court to do so.” Perry v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local No. 73
Pension Fund, 585 F.3d 358, 362 (7th Cir. 2009). “[T]here is good reason” to request
the entry of a Rule 58 judgment, the court explained, because that document
“clarifies what the ultimate result is, benefitting both the parties (for purposes of
enforcement and clarity of legal obligation) and the judicial system (for providing a
clear time period for taking an appeal).” Id.
5.

For these reasons, this Court should set out its judgment denying

habeas corpus relief in a separate document as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).

August 21, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
LISA MADIGAN
Attorney General of Illinois
By:

s/ Michael R. Blankenheim
MICHAEL R. BLANKENHEIM , Bar # 6289072
Assistant Attorney General
100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3218
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

-2-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 21, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion
For Entry Of A Rule 58 Judgment with the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, using the CM/ECF
system, and on the same date mailed a copy of that document via the United States
Postal Service to the following non-CM/ECF user:
Christopher Scott, R31806
Menard Correctional Center
P.O. Box 1000
Menard, Illinois 62259

s/ Michael R. Blankenheim
MICHAEL R. BLANKENHEIM