Chaney v. Cross

Filing 31

ORDER re 30 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Carlton Lamont Chaney, 27 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Carlton Lamont Chaney. The motions are DENIED in all respects. Respondent is ordered to (1) file a motion regarding the proper respondent, and to (2) mail a copy of the decision in Montana v. Cross to petitioner. Petitioner's supplemental memorandum is due by September 30, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 8/10/2016. (jmt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CARLTON LAMONT CHANEY,
vs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,

JAMES N. CROSS,
Respondent.
PROUD, Magistrate Judge:

Case No. 15-cv-211-DRH-CJP

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of
Counsel, Docs. 27 & 30.
The Court denied a previous motion for appointment of counsel. See, Doc.
23.

The instant motions are denied for the same reasons, i.e., there is no

constitutional right to counsel in habeas corpus cases, petitioner has not
demonstrated a sufficient attempt to secure counsel, and petitioner is capable of
litigating this case himself.
Petitioner also has a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 pending in
the Southern District of Indiana in which he raises a claim under Johnson v.
United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015). He asks this Court to transfer his §2241
petition to the Southern District of Indiana. However, the proper respondent to a
§2241 petition is the person who has custody of the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. §2242.
Where, as here, the petition challenges the present custody, “the default rule is
that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is
being held. . . .” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 2718 (2004). Petitioner is
1

not being held in the Southern District of Indiana, so transfer of the petition to
that district is not warranted.
Petitioner is now assigned to FCI-Gilmer in West Virginia. Therefore, the
warden of FCI-Greenville is no longer the proper respondent.

Respondent is

ordered to file a motion regarding the proper respondent by August 19, 2016.
Petitioner also states that he cannot respond to the Court’s recent order
because he does not have access to the opinion in Montana v. Cross, 2016 WL
3910054, issued on July 19, 2016. Respondent is ordered to mail a copy of the
Montana opinion to petitioner.

Petitioner is granted additional time, up to

September 30, 2016, in which to file his memorandum regarding the application
of Montana to this petition.
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s Motions for Appointment of Counsel,
Docs. 27 & 30, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 10, 2016.

s/ Clifford J. Proud
CLIFFORD J. PROUD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2