Perkins v. IDOC et al

Filing 14

Order for Service of Process upon Respondent Richard Stempinski: For the reasons stated in the attached Order, Antonio Perkins's 12 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 survives preliminary review in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Warden Stempinski is DIRECTED to answer or otherwise respond to the 12 Petition by April 11, 2025. Petitioner is advised of his continuing obligation to kee p the Clerk informed of any change in his whereabouts during the pendency of this action in accordance with Local Rule 3.1(b)(2). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate IDOC, Kwame Raoul, and Latoya Hughes as Defendants in this action. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 3/12/2025. (dpb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTONIO PERKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 25-CV-00011-SPM

IDOC, KWAME RAOUL, LATOYA
HUGHES, and RICHARD
STEMPINSKI
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Petitioner Antonio Perkins is an inmate currently incarcerated at the
Jacksonville Correctional Center in Jacksonville, Illinois. Before the Court is an
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.
12). Perkins argues that he was unlawfully sentenced consecutively for two crimes
that were part of the same physical act in violation of the “one crime-one act rule.”
(Doc. 1, p. 5). This Petition is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts.
Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the 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.”
Furthermore, “a prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus must exhaust his

Page 1 of 3

state remedies before seeking federal relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); see also Parker
v. Duncan, No. 3:15-cv-00326-DRH, 2015 WL 1757092 (S.D. Ill. April 15, 2016)
(citing Moleterno v. Nelson, 114 F.3d 629, 633 (7th Cir. 1997)). A state petitioner
can challenge his confinement under § 2254 only after having exhausted both
administrative remedies and state judicial remedies, including one complete round
of state appellate review. VanSkike v. Sullivan, No. 18-cv-2138-NJR, 2019 WL
6327195, at * 2 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2019). The exhaustion doctrine is “designed to
give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional
claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts.” O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Petitioner indicates that his direct appeal was
denied by the Illinois Appellate Courts and that the Illinois Supreme Court declined
to hear his case. (Doc. 12, pp. 5–6). The docket sheet for State of Illinois v. Perkins,
No. 18-CF-3607 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2019), corroborates that Perkins filed an appeal in the
Illinois Appellate Courts, which was denied. However, because of the lack of docket
information available from the Illinois Appellate Courts, it is unclear whether he
has exhausted his state court remedies by appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court.
This Court holds that the possibility of exhaustion is sufficient to require the State
of Illinois to respond to Perkins’s Petition to provide additional details.
Therefore, without commenting on the merits of his claims, the Court
concludes that Perkins’s Petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4. Given
the limited record, it is not plainly apparent that Perkins is not entitled to habeas
relief.

Page 2 of 3

The Court also notes that Perkins has named IDOC, Director of IDOC Latoya
Hughes, and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul as Defendants. The Clerk of
Court is DIRECTED to dismiss IDOC, Kwame Raoul, and Latoya Hughes as
Defendants. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d); Bridges v. Chambers, 425
F.3d 1048, 1049–50 (7th Cir. 2005) (the proper respondent in a 2254 petition is the
prisoner’s current custodian); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Richard Stempinski shall
answer or otherwise plead on or before April 11, 2025. This preliminary order to
respond does not preclude the Government from raising any objection or defense it
may wish to present. Service upon the Illinois Attorney General, Criminal Appeals
Bureau, 100 West Randolph, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601, shall constitute
sufficient service.
Perkins is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court
(and opposing parties) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the
pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later than
fourteen (14) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs in accordance
with Local Rule 3.1(b)(2). Failure to provide such notice may result in dismissal of
this case or other sanctions. See id.; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 12, 2025
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3