Marks v. Cross
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE : The CLERK is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and refund petitioner's $5.00 filing fee. Further, the CLERK is DIRECTED to file the amended petition (Doc. 1 ) in the habeas action entitled, Marks v. Cross, No. 14-cv-99. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 3/25/2014. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES D. MARKS,
# 06023-033,
Petitioner,
vs.
Case No. 14-cv-299-DRH
JAMES N. CROSS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief District Judge:
This case was opened on March 3, 2014, when petitioner filed an
“Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (“amended
petition”) (Doc. 1). Petitioner paid his $5.00 filing fee for this action on March 14,
2014. Upon review of the amended petition and petitioner’s litigation history, it is
clear that the instant pleading should have been filed as an “amended petition” in
Marks v. Cross, No. 14-cv-99 (S.D. Ill. filed January 28, 2014) (“prior action”).
This Court dismissed the original petition that was filed in the prior action on
February 20, 2014. However, the dismissal was without prejudice, and petitioner
was granted leave to file an amended petition under § 2241 on or before March
19, 2014.
Petitioner filed the amended petition prior to that deadline.
In
substance, the amended petition is quite clearly related to the original petition
filed in the prior action.
Page 1 of 2
Accordingly, the CLERK is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and refund
petitioner’s $5.00 filing fee.
Further, the CLERK is DIRECTED to file the
amended petition (Doc. 1) in the habeas action entitled, Marks v. Cross, No. 14cv-99 (S.D. Ill. January 28, 2014).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 25th day of March, 2014.
Digitally signed
by David R.
Herndon
Date: 2014.03.25
14:21:19 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2
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?