Chapman 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
LAMADRAE CHAPMAN, No. 08460025
Petitioner,
–899-DRH
vs.
T.G. WERLICH,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se Petitioner Lamadrae Chapman, 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 a prior burglary offense in
Illinois. 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.
Without commenting on the merits of Petitioner's claims, the Court
concludes that the Petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4 and Rule
1
In his criminal case, Petitioner was sentenced as “Career Offender” after two prior convictions for
crimes of violence. United States v. Chapman, 09-30096-DRH; Doc. 32. The two crimes of violence
were residential burglary in #94-CF-517 and aggravated battery in #00-CF-203 that were
classified as crimes of violence due to residential burglary being an enumerated offense and
aggravated battery having an element of the use or attempted use of force. See Chapman v. U.S.,
16-691-DRH; Doc. 11 (dismissing § 2255 Petition).
1
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 (on or before
October 27, 2017). 2
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
than seven (7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to
2
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.
2
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
14:35:45 -05'00'
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
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?