IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
March 24, 2010
CHESTER ALLEN CLOW, PETITIONER,
LISA HOLLINGSWORTH, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for clarification (Doc. 6) which the Court liberally construes as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Upon initial review of Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241, this Court determined that Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief, but his claims may be actionable in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum and Order (Doc. 4), the Court did not re-characterize the habeas petition as one seeking relief under § 1983. Instead, the Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, but in order to preserve Plaintiff's right to pursue relief in an appropriate civil rights action, made the dismissal without prejudice. Unfortunately, the Judgment (Doc. 5) accompanying the Memorandum and Order stated that the dismissal was "with prejudice." This obviously conflicts with the Memorandum and Order (Doc. 4) and was an error. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion for clarification is GRANTED. The Judgment (Doc. 5) is VACATED pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A new Judgment will be entered stating that dismissal is without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.