Sorenson v. Dennison
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 3/12/2018. (jaj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIC S. SORENSON, M46329,
Case No. 18−cv–0252-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pro se Petitioner Eric Sorenson, currently incarcerated in Shawnee
Correctional Center, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging his conviction on one count armed robbery in Illinois state
court. (Doc. 1, p. 2). The case was filed on February 12, 2018. (Doc. 1).
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
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). Petitioner alleges that he was deprived of a fair trial where the trial court
prevented him from presenting a complete defense. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Specifically,
Petitioner has alleged that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated
when he was prohibited from inquiring into witness Dorsey’s biases, prejudices,
and ulterior motives. (Doc. 1, pp. 11-13). Petitioner also alleges that the state
failed to prove that he was the robber. (Doc. 1, pp. 14-15). Petitioner has further
affirmatively alleged that he has exhausted his state court remedies on these
points. (Doc. 1, p. 8). As the Petition survives preliminary review, the Warden
shall be ordered to respond.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Dennison shall answer or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered (on or before
April 11, 2018).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 of the petition and this Memorandum and Order upon the Illinois
Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Bureau, 100 West Randolph, 12th Floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60601, 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
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
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.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
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?