Seiver v. Walton

Filing 5

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the petition or otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 9/30/2013. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RONALD A. SEIVER,
No. 17217-026,
Petitioner,
vs.

CIVIL NO. 13-cv-00928-DRH

J.S. WALTON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Ronald A. Seiver, an inmate in the United States Penitentiary at Marion,
Illinois, petitions the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to overturn two prison
disciplinary convictions that caused him to lose 26 days of good conduct credit.
Seiver contends that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated
because there was insufficient evidence to support his July 24, 2012, convictions
for abuse of the mail and abuse of the telephone.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts
provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court
the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.

Page 1 of 3

Inmates have a liberty interest in good conduct credits that is protected
under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 2241is the appropriate means by

which to make such a challenge. See Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841 (7th Cir.
2011). There is insufficient information before the Court upon which to conclude
that dismissal at this preliminary stage pursuant to Rule 4 is appropriate.
Therefore, respondent Walton will be required to respond or otherwise plead.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the petition or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered. This
preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the State from making
whatever waiver, exhaustion or timeliness it may wish to present. 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.
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

Page 2 of 3

than seven days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.09.30
12:57:52 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 30, 2013

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3