IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 20, 2009
KEVIN MERRITT, A/K/A EDWARD URBANSKI, PETITIONER,
JESSE SUTTER, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner, currently in custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections in Boley, Oklahoma, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the validity of a detainer lodged against him by the State of Illinois. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Court finds that he is, in fact, indigent. Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.
Before further proceedings are ordered, a few words about the named respondents are necessary. Petitioner names as a respondent Jesse Sutter (the warden of a prison in Oklahoma), Robert Haida (the state's attorney for St. Clair County, Illinois), and the Attorney General of Illinois. In his supplement (Doc. 5), Petitioner states that after filing this action, he was moved to the John Lilly Correctional Center in Boley, and the warden at that facility is Jane Standiford. Because Petitioner is incarcerated in Oklahoma, but he is challenging an action by the State of Illinois, the proper respondents are both Warden Standiford and the Illinois Attorney General. See Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. However, Robert Haida is not a proper respondent, and he is DISMISSED as a party to this action.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Warden Standiford is SUBSTITUTED for Warden Sutter as a Respondent in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall, within twenty-three (23) days of receipt of this application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, answer and show cause why the writ should not issue.
Service upon the Illinois Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Bureau, 100 West Randolph, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601, and upon Warden Standiford at the John Lilly Correctional center in Boley, Oklahoma, shall constitute sufficient service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this cause is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a referral.
Petitioner is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk and each opposing party informed of any change in his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than seven
(7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM D. STIEHL DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.