IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
December 17, 2007
RONALD WALKER, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
LARRY PHILLIPS, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This cause is before the Court on Petitioners' Emergency Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus (d/e 2) (§ 2254 Petition). The Court will consider the § 2254 Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
After a review of the § 2254 Petition, this Court finds that a summary dismissal is not warranted. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4, the Attorney General for the State of Illinois will be required to respond to the § 2254 Petition. The response will discuss the merits and the procedural posture of the § 2254 Petition, i.e. whether Petitioners have exhausted their state remedies and/or procedurally defaulted any claims. See Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
A preliminary matter, however, must be resolved before the Attorney General responds pursuant to Rule 5. The Petitioners ask to represent all similarly situated persons in custody at the Rushville, Illinois, Treatment and Detention Facility (Facility). The Court must decide this issue before addressing the merits and the procedural posture of the Petition.
THEREFORE, the Attorney General for the State of Illinois is ordered to file on or before February 15, 2008, a response addressing whether the Petitioners should be allowed to represent all similarly situated persons in custody at the Facility in this proceeding. The Petitioners will have until March 31, 2008, to file any reply. After this issue is resolved, the Court will set a time for the Attorney General to respond, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases, to Petitioners' § 2254 Petition.
IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.
ENTER: December 17, 2007
JEANNE E. SCOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.