Mathison v. Berkebile

Filing 13

ORDER denying 11 Motion to Stay. Signed by U. S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 9/14/12. (DJP)

Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION SEP 14 2012 ~J 7 ~""'~ ******************* ***** ********* ****** ************* * EUGENE H. MATHISON, Petitioner, * * * * * - vs- CIV. 12-4156 ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY * DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden, * * * Respondent. * ************* ***************** ****** **************** After Eugene H. Mathison, by his counsel of record, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.s.C. § 2241 and a Motion for Bail pending the disposition ofthe habeas petition, Respondent challenged jurisdiction in his response to the motion for bail and in a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent has now moved to stay its response to the petition for habeas corpus. Doc. 11. As the Court has previously stated, Mathison raises serious concerns as to whether his conviction and sentence for both money laundering and fraud is valid under the holding of United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008). Counsel for Mathison has not yet responded to the motion to dismiss and Respondent's jurisdictional defense. Even if the Court were to find in favor of the Respondent on the issue of the correct district to bring this action, the Court may still consider, if it be in the interest ofjustice, to transfer the action pursuant t028 U.s.c. § 1406(a) or to continue the appointment of counsel to pursue an appropriate remedy. The input from the Government on the merits of the Santos claim would assist the Court in making such a determination. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Respondent's motion to stay the response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 11) is denied. Dated this \ LllJaay of September, 20] 2. BY THE COURT: awrence L. Pi~~<"';':=-=="--=-­ nited States District Judge ATTEST' ~~SEP~f~Y (S 1\ ) DEPUTY

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?