Haris v. Sproul

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR SERVICE. The Court ORDERS the respondent to answer or otherwise plead on or before December 21, 2022. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 11/18/2022. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
COURTNEY LEE HARRIS, No. 29137-044,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 22-cv-2436-JPG

D. SPROUL, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER FOR SERVICE
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Courtney Lee Harris’s petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). The petitioner is incarcerated at the
United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, where respondent Daniel Sproul is the warden.
The petitioner is challenging his sentence on the grounds that, in light of Borden v. United States,
141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021), he was wrongfully sentenced as an armed career criminal under the
Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).
This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Rule 4 provides
that upon preliminary consideration by a district 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 the Federal
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other
habeas corpus cases.
The Court is unable to determine from the petition and its exhibits that Harris is not
entitled to relief under § 2241. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the respondent to answer or

otherwise plead on or before December 21, 2022. This preliminary order to respond does not
preclude the respondent from raising any objection or defense the respondent 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. Harris shall have 14
days to reply to the respondent’s response.
To the extent the respondent believes the outcome of Jones v. Hendrix, No. 21-857,
currently before the United States Supreme Court, may be dispositive of Harris’s motion, the
Court would entertain a motion for extension of time to respond to allow for that decision.
The petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and opposing
parties informed of any change in the petitioner’s whereabouts during the pendency of this
action. This notification must be in writing no later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address. Failure to provide notice may result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 18, 2022

s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2