Wilson v. True
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 4/10/2018. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DARRYL L. WILSON,
Case No. 18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Darryl Wilson is currently incarcerated in the United States
Penitentiary located in Marion, Illinois (“USP-Marion”). He brings this federal
habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in order to challenge the
enhancement of his sentence in United States v. Epps, No. 02-cr-00895-25 (N.D.
Ill.). In reliance on Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. ––, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016),
Wilson asserts that his 1994 conviction in Illinois for a controlled substance
offense no longer qualifies as a predicate felony drug offense under 21 U.S.C.
§ 851. (Doc. 1, pp. 7-9). Wilson also argues that his sentence violates his right to
due process because it was predicated upon uncharged conduct, in light of Nelson
v. Colorado, –– U.S. ––, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017). (Doc. 1, pp. 4-6). He asks the
Court to vacate his sentence. (Doc. 1, p. 9).
This matter is now before the Court for review of the 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 still-developing application of Mathis and the particularly
complicated procedural history of this case as it pertains to Wilson’s sentence, the
Court deems it necessary to order a response. The Court takes no position at this
time regarding the Mathis argument, in light of the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals’ recent decision in United States v. Redden, 875 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. Nov.
8, 2017) (career offender enhancement of sentence based on Illinois controlled
substance convictions was proper). The Court also takes no position regarding
the application of Nelson in this context.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent True shall answer or otherwise
plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered. 1 This preliminary order
to respond does not 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 pre1
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.
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
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.
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?