Maze v. Werlich

Filing 3

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/27/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSEPH MAZE, No. 13378-040,
Petitioner,
vs.

–893-DRH

T.G. WERLICH,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Joseph Maze, 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 case of Mathis v. United States, –––
U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) and related case law, he challenges his
enhanced sentence as a career offender based on two prior controlled substance
offenses in Michigan. 1 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.
1

In 2008, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, a jury convicted
Petitioner of possessing with intent to deliver more than five grams of cocaine base. (W.D. Mich.
Case No. 1:07-cr-170). The district court sentenced him as a career offender to 240 months of
imprisonment. The district court applied the career-offender enhancement because Petitioner had
two prior “controlled substance offenses,” as defined by USSG § 4B1.2(b). The Sixth Circuit
affirmed. United States v. Maze, 382 F. App’x 462 (6th Cir. 2010). In 2011, Petitioner filed a §
2255 motion, which the district court denied on the merits. (W.D. Mich. Case No. 1:11-cv-1007).
Petitioner did not appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner sought permission to file a second or successive §
2255 motion in order to argue that, in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 2563
(2015), he no longer qualified as a career offender. See Maze v. U.S., No. 16-1639 (6th Cir. Oct. 5,
2016). The motion was denied. Id.

1

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.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Werlich shall answer or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this Order is entered.

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.
IT IS 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

2

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
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.09.27
14:37:35 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3