Martin v. Werlich

Filing 4

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/25/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TROY MARTIN, No. 21567-424,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 3:

T.G. WERLICH,
Respondent.

–00842-DRH

ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Troy Martin, currently incarcerated in the Federal
Correctional Institution at Greenville, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Relying on the recent case of Mathis v. United

States, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), he argues that his sentence should
not have been enhanced based on 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(35) and U.S. SENTENCING
GUIDELINE MANUAL §§ 2K2.6, 3B1.5.

This case is now before the Court for a

preliminary review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Without commenting on the
merits of Petitioner's claims, the Court concludes that the Petition survives
preliminary review under Rule 4 and Rule 1(b). Given the limited record and the
still-developing application of Mathis, it is not plainly apparent that Petitioner is
not entitled to habeas relief.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Werlich shall answer or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered (on or before

25, 2017). 1 This preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the
Government from raising any objection or defense 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 United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for further
pre-trial proceedings; and FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be
REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Proud 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
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 25th day of September, 2017.

Digitally signed by Judge
David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.09.25 16:41:51
-05'00'
1

The response date ordered herein is controlling. Any date that CM/ECF should generate in the
course of this litigation is a guideline only. See SDIL-EFR 3.