Cook v. Ebbert

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Respondent Slatery is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 10/13/2016. (AML, ) Copy of M/O and Petition mailed to Warden Ebbert, Attorney General Slatery. Copy of M/O mailed to Antwon Cook.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
ANTWON M. COOK,
Petitioner,
v.
DAVID J. EBBERT, Warden, and
HERBERT H. SLATERY, III, Attorney
General for the State of Tennessee,1,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-CV-398
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Acting pro se, Antwon M. Cook, a federal prisoner, filed this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner challenges his 2006 Bradley County,
Tennessee, convictions for cocaine-related offenses, for which he received a sentence of eight
years’ imprisonment. (Id. at 1.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to add the Attorney General for The
State of Tennessee, Herbert H. Slatery, III, as a respondent and to serve copies of the petition and
this Memorandum and Order on both Respondents.
Since it does not plainly appear from the face of the petition that it should be summarily
dismissed, Respondent Slatery is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the petition
within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
In The United States District Courts. Respondent Slatery should specifically address whether the
1

Because Petitioner is confined in a federal prison pursuant to a federal conviction and because
he is attacking state court convictions which seemingly will cause him to be kept in custody in
the future, the correct respondents are the Warden of the federal prison and the attorney general
of the state whose actions subjects Petitioner to future custody. See Rule 2(b) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, advisory committee’s notes, 1976 adoption.

habeas corpus petition was timely filed and whether Petitioner has exhausted his available state
court remedies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(d), 2254(b).
Although a reply is not necessary, if Petitioner wishes to file a reply, he SHALL file that
reply within thirty (30) days from the date Respondent files his answer with the Court. Rule
5(e), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings In The United States District Courts. Any reply
should not exceed twenty-five pages; must directly reply to the points and authorities in the
Warden’s answer; and must not to be used to reargue the points and authorities included in the
petition or to present any new issues. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.1(b) and (c).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2