Johnson v. Werlich

Filing 3

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/7/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT STANFORD JOHNSON,
#07379-030,
Petitioner,

Case No. 18−cv–952−DRH

vs.
T.G. WERLICH,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Petitioner Robert Stanford Johnson, who is currently incarcerated in the
Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois (“Greenville”), filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

(Doc. 1).

Relying on the recent case of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), he
challenges the sentence he received in United States v. Johnson, 13-cr-009-JEGRAW (S.D. Iowa 2013). (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). 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(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.

1

Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Werlich shall answer or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this Order is entered.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 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
Magistrate Judge Proud for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2)
and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all 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 must be done in writing and no later
than 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to provide
notice may result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Judge Herndon
2018.05.07 14:51:25
-05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge

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