Emerson v. Hollingsworth
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud; denying 2 MOTION for Release Pending Adjudication. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 11/20/08. (eed)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LARRY L. EMERSON, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN HOLLINGSWORTH, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CIVIL NO. 08-cv-451-WDS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STIEHL, District Judge: Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his conviction and sentence for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. The basis for this action is the recent Supreme Court decision of United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (2008). Also before the Court is Petitioner's motion for release pending adjudication of his § 2241 action (Doc. 2). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent shall, within twenty-three (23) days of receipt of this application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, answer and show cause why the writ should not issue. Service upon the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this cause is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a referral.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for release pending adjudication (Doc. 2) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 20, 2008.
s/ WILLIAM D. STIEHL DISTRICT JUDGE
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?