IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 21, 2006
STEVEN CHARLES TINSLEY, PETITIONER,
S. REVELL, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is petitioner's "Motion for Instanter" (Doc. 2), which was filed simultaneously with the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner asks that the Court gant the petition, and he includes what appear to be exhibits from the State court record.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court have the record reflect that petitioner's "Motion for Instanter" (Doc. 2) is not a motion at all; rather, it is construed as exhibits in support of the petition (Doc. 1). The petition will be decided in due course, after consideration of the parties' briefs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.