Jones v. Cross

Filing 3

ORDER requiring petitioner to supplement his petition by February 7, 2013. See Order for specifics.Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 1/7/2013. (mtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL EVERETT JONES,
Inmate No. 08641-424,
Petitioner,
vs.
JAMES CROSS, JR.,
Respondent.

Case No. 12-cv-1228-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, Chief District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court for purposes of case management.
Petitioner, currently incarcerated in Greenville Federal Correctional Institution
(FCI Greenville), brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
However, due to the incompleteness of petitioner’s submitted petition and
memorandum in support, the Court is unable to make a preliminary
determination at this time pursuant to Rule 4 and Rule 1(b) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. 1 Thus, petitioner
is ORDERED to supplement his petition and supportive materials in accordance
with the directives of this Order by Thursday, February 7, 2013.
Petitioner states he was convicted in the Western District of Tennessee for
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting in October
1

Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases.
Page 1 of 2

of 2006. On direct appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed petitioner’s conviction.
Petitioner also relates the denials of various post-conviction petitions were also
affirmed on appeal. However, as to the instant petition, petitioner has failed to
include the relevant allegations, as he merely states, “[e]rroneous career offender
enhancement” forms the basis of his petition. Petitioner’s attached memorandum
of law does not further enlighten the Court as to the instant allegations, as it
consists of one page of text (while this seems inadvertent as petitioner’s
statements cut-off in mid-sentence) and nine pages of Illinois Compiled Statues
(the relevance of which is not clear to the Court) (Doc. 1-2).
Thus, before the Court can make a preliminary determination concerning
petitioner’s claims, petitioner must provide the Court with both the factual
and legal substance of his allegations contained within a petition. To clarify,
while a memorandum of law can help to clarify petitioner’s arguments, it does not
sufficiently bring claims against respondent. Thus, petitioner is directed to
supplement his petition with a brief explanation of the factual and legal bases of
his claims by Thursday, February 7, 2013. Petitioner is advised that failure to so
supplement shall result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.01.07
16:10:30 -06'00'

Signed this 7th day of January, 2013.

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 2 of 2