Young v. Walton

Filing 6

ORDER STAYING CASE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this § 2241 action is STAYED for thirty days. On or before September 25, 2015, petitioner shall notify this Court in writing as to the status of the § 2255 action in Michigan. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/26/2015. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL DANOTUS YOUNG,
No. 13380-040
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 15-cv-848-DRH

JEFFREY S. WALTON,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner, currently incarcerated in the USP-Marion, Illinois, brings this
habeas

corpus

action

pursuant

to 28

U.S.C.

§ 2241

to

challenge

the

constitutionality of his confinement. He argues that under the recent decision of
the Supreme Court in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (June 26, 2015),
his enhanced career-offender sentence of 15 years, imposed pursuant to the
“residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act, is unconstitutional.
If this were petitioner’s only pending case raising this issue, the Court
would order the government to respond.

However, in the interest of judicial

economy, this matter will be stayed while the Sixth Circuit considers petitioner’s
pending request to pursue a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
which also seeks relief from his sentence based on Johnson.
Petitioner filed the instant action on August 3, 2015 (Doc. 1). Previously,
he had written to the Clerk of Court for the Western District of Michigan, where he

Page 1 of 2

was convicted and sentenced, asking that court to reconsider his sentence in light
of Johnson. See Doc. 86 in United States v. Young, Case No. 07-cr-102 (W.D.
Mich.). On July 21, 2015, the sentencing court construed petitioner’s letter as a
motion under § 2255, and appointed counsel for him (Doc. 87 in criminal case).
Petitioner notified this Court of these developments in the Michigan case on
August 10, 2015 (Doc. 5, p. 5). Petitioner’s Michigan counsel filed a brief, the
government responded, and on August 20, 2015, the district court transferred the
action to the Sixth Circuit for a determination on whether to authorize the district
court to consider petitioner’s successive § 2255 motion (Doc. 91 in criminal case).
In light of these developments, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this § 2241
action is STAYED for thirty days. On or before September 25, 2015, petitioner
shall notify this Court in writing as to the status of the § 2255 action in Michigan.
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).

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.08.26
11:40:56 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2015

United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2