Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Springfield Division Allen L. Moore v. Larry Phillips

April 25, 2011

SPRINGFIELD DIVISION ALLEN L. MOORE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LARRY PHILLIPS, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, United States District Judge.

Tuesday, 26 April, 2011 10:16:55 AM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

This cause is before the Court on (1) the Motion to Dismiss (d/e 16) filed by Respondent Larry Phillips, the Director of the Rushville Department of Human Services Treatment and Detention Center; and (2) the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (d/e 14) filed by Petitioner Allen L. Moore. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (d/e 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (d/e 14) is DENIED AS MOOT.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Petitioner's pleadings and the documents attached thereto.

A. The Sexually Violent Person Proceedings (St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 05-MR-199)

In July 2005, shortly before Petitioner's projected release from the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), the Illinois Attorney General's office (the State) filed a petition under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 207/1, et seq. ). (St. Clair County case No. 05-MR-199; hereinafter, the SVP case). The State sought to commit Petitioner as a sexually violent person (SVP) upon his release to mandatory supervised release (MSR).

On July 19, 2005, the St. Clair County circuit court entered an initial order of commitment, ordering that custody of Petitioner be transferred to the Department of Human Services (DHS) upon the completion of Petitioner's sentence at IDOC. However, while detained at DHS, Petitioner was charged with violating his MSR and, on December 27, 2005, Petitioner was transferred to IDOC. In February 2006, the Illinois Prisoner Review Board found Petitioner violated his MSR and ordered he serve out the remainder of his sentence with IDOC.

On April 4, 2006, the St. Clair County circuit court granted the State's motion to dismiss the SVP case without prejudice. On April 17, 2006, the State filed a Motion to Vacate Order. The State indicated that IDOC initially calculated Petitioner's discharge date as July 12, 2007, and, based on that information, the circuit court had granted the State's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. The Motion further stated that the State had now learned that Petitioner was scheduled to be released October 4, 2006, much sooner than expected. Therefore, the State asked the circuit court to vacate the order dismissing the case without prejudice. That same day, the court granted the motion. Petitioner's attorney approved the order as to form. The SVP case remains pending and it does not appear that the trial on the petition for civil commitment has yet occurred. See Martin v. Brock, 2007 WL 1853298, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (the court may take judicial notice of a state court docket).

B. Petitioner's State Habeas Petition (St. Clair County case No. 08-MR-287)

In December 2008, Petitioner filed in the St. Clair County circuit court an Application for Order of Habeas Corpus, which is not contained in the record. See St. Clair County case No. 08-MR-287 (hereinafter, the state habeas case). In January 2009, Petitioner filed an Amended Application for Order of Habeas Corpus, which is contained in the record. In the Amended Application for Order of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner alleged his rights under the Act were violated because he was not provided notice of the time and place of the hearing at which the court granted the State's motion to vacate the dismissal of the SVP case. Petitioner further alleged he was involuntarily detained by DHS based solely on a petition that was dismissed without prejudice and not refiled in accordance with the Act's strict requirements. Therefore, according to Petitioner, his detention was invalid and in violation of his United States Constitutional right to due process of law and fundamental fairness.

C. Petitioner's Federal Habeas Petition In August 2010, Petitioner filed the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 or 28 U.S.C. §2241 By a Person in State Custody (Petition) (d/e 1) at issue herein and an accompanying memorandum of law. In the Petition, Petitioner alleged his current detention under the Act was illegal and in direct violation of his Constitutional rights. Specifically, Petitioner complained that he did not receive any notice of the April 17, 2006, order vacating the dismissal of the SVP case and that he was not present at the hearing. Petitioner asserted the circuit court lacked personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over Petitioner because the State never refiled the SVP petition under the Act's strict guidelines. As such, according to Petitioner, he was being held in custody in violation of the Constitution. Petitioner further asserted he could not exhaust his administrative remedies because his pending state court habeas petition had remained dormant for 17 months.

Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (d/e 14). In the Motion, Petitioner asks this Court to enjoin the SVP proceedings in the state court because, according to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.