IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 28, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
STANLEY H. HAPPOLD, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Murphy, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Mr. Happold's pro se motion for relief, titled "motion to reopen 28 USC 2255 proceedings under the authority of the savings clause and treate [sic] as a 28 USC 2241 proceeding" (Doc. 25). Mr. Happold's motion is DENIED. Mr. Happold appears to be under the assumption that a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is pending. There is no such motion pending in this District. If Mr. Happold wishes to file a § 2255 motion, he may use the forms available from the Clerk's office. However, the Court warns Mr. Happold that filing a § 2255 motion carries drastic consequences, including restrictions on successive habeas motions. See Williams v. United States, 366 F.3d 438, 439 (7th Cir. 2004); Nolan v. United States, 358 F.3d 480, 485 (7th Cir. 2004).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
G. PATRICK MURPHY United States District Judge
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.