Connelly v. Cross

Filing 6

ORDER directing the government to respond to petitioner's habeas corpus petition. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 8/9/12. (klh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES EDWARD CONNELLY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CROSS,
Defendant.

No. 12-097-DRH
ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
James Edward Connelly, who may currently be incarcerated in FCI Terre
Haute, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge
the constitutionality of his confinement.1 He challenges his 1992 conviction based on
a Sixth Circuit case which he claims is intervening change of law, Hampton v. United
States, 191 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1999). At the time of the filing of his complaint,
Connelly was incarcerated in FCI Greenville. Without commenting on the merits of
petitioner’s claims, the Court concludes that the petition survives preliminary review
under Rule 4 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United
States District Courts.2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer or otherwise plead

1

The Court checked the inmate locator on the BOP website and it suggests that Connelly is
confined at FCI Terre Haute.
2

Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases.

Page 1 of 2

within thirty days of the date this order is entered. This preliminary order to respond
does not, of course, preclude the Government from raising any objection or defense
it may wish to present. Respondent should address the venue issue. Service upon
the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue,
East St. Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service.
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and each
opposing party) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the pendency of
this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later than seven (7)
days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to provide such
notice may result in dismissal of this action. See FED.R.CIV.P. 41(b). The Court
notes that petitioner apparently did not follow this rule as the BOP website indicates
that he has been transferred to Terre Haute FCI. Petitioner did not inform the Court
that he is no longer housed within this judicial district. Petitioner is advised to
report his current location to this Court’s clerk so that a decision can be made
regarding venue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2012.08.09
15:38:00 -05'00'

Signed this 9th day of August, 2012.

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 2 of 2