Williams v. Werlich

Filing 3

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/6/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BERRY WILLIAMS,
No. 37112-044,
Petitioner,

–1136-DRH

vs.
T.G. WERLICH,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner Berry Williams, an inmate who is currently incarcerated in the
Federal Correctional Institution at Greenville, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Relying on the recent case of

Mathis v. United States, –- U.S. ––, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), Petitioner challenges
his enhanced sentence as a career offender based on a prior conviction for second
degree assault of a law enforcement officer in Missouri. (Doc. 1, p. 2; Doc. 1-1,
pp. 1-9). This matter is now before the Court for review of the § 2241 Petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District
Courts, which provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court
judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules
gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases.

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 (on or before
December 6, 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 ALSO ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this cause
is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for further pretrial 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
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.

2

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.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
Date: 2017.11.06
14:53:59 -06'00'

3