Duke v. Krueger
Petitioner: Ralph Chavous Duke
Respondent: Jeffrey Krueger
Case Number: 1:2017cv01024
Filed: January 23, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office: Peoria Office
County: Tazewell
Presiding Judge: Joe Billy McDade
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 29, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 15 AMENDED ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 9/29/2017. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas CorpusPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1 ) is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:1) Petitioner' ;s convictions for violating Counts 28, 29, and 30, using orcarrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense all inviolation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in United States v. Duke, No. 4:89-cr-00094-DSD-1 are VACATED; 2) The Cl erk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Opinion and Order to Petitioner; Respondent; the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota; 3) The matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for resentencing in light of United States v. Jackson, 103 F.3d 561, 56970 (7th Cir. 1996). SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION. (JS, ilcd)
September 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 9/19/2017. For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1 ) is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1) Petitioner's con victions for violating Counts 28, 29, and 30, using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) in United States v. Duke, No. 4:89-cr-00094-DSD-1 are VACATED; 2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Opinion and Order to Petitioner; Respondent; the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the United States Attorney for the Districtof Minnesota; 3) The Government is given thirt y days from the entry of this Opinion and Order to provide written notice to the Petitioner, Respondent and the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota as to whether the Government wishes to retry Petitioner on Count 28 in Case No. 4:89-cr-00094-DSD-1; 4) Should the Government decline to retry Petitioner or fail to provide notice as to its intent to retry as directed above, Respondent is directed to release Petitioner from custody if the Respondent determines Petitioner has served his 365 months sentence. IT IS SO ORDERED. CASE TERMINATED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION. (JS, ilcd)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Duke v. Krueger
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Ralph Chavous Duke
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Jeffrey Krueger
Represented By: Segev Phillips(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?