Blue v. Werlich
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/8/2017. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
QUINCY DARNELL BLUE,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Quincy Blue, 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, in order to challenge his enhanced sentence
as a career offender based on his prior convictions in Kansas for aggravated
escape and possession of marijuana and/or cocaine.
(Doc. 1, pp. 1-10).
support of the Petition, he relies on the recent case of Mathis v. United States, –U.S. ––, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). 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.
Given the limited record and the still-developing application of Mathis, it is
not plainly apparent that the Petition should be dismissed. 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). A response shall be ordered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Werlich shall answer or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered (December 8,
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
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and
each opposing party) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the
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.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 8th day of November, 2017.
Digitally signed by
Judge David R. Herndon
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?