Gaunichaux v. Warden FCI Pekin
| Dominique Gaunichaux |
| Warden FCI Pekin |
| 1:2022cv01358 |
| October 20, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| James E Shadid |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER: Respondent Motion for Order Clarifying Docket #7 is GRANTED. Because service was not effectuated on the Respondent until November 28, 2022, the Court will EXTEND Respondent's deadline to respond to the Petition until December 19, 2022. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 12/6/2022. (VH)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Order Clarifying Docket by Respondent Warden FCI Pekin. Responses due by 12/12/2022 (Simpson, W.) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by W. Scott Simpson on behalf of Warden FCI Pekin (Simpson, W.) |
| Filing 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE Executed as to #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, #4 Order Acknowledgement filed by Warden FCI Pekin. (VH) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 11/16/2022. 1) Respondent shall file an answer, motion, or other response to the Petition, within twenty-one (21) days after service of this Order;2) After Respondent has filed its response, Petitioner may file any traverse or reply to Respondent's response within twenty-one (21) days after service of Respondent's response on him. The Court warns Petitioner that if he does not reply to the response, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2248, the Court will take the factual allegations in the response to the Writ of habeas corpus as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true;3) Respondent's counsel has already appeared in this matter, so will be receiving all documents filed in this case electronically. Accordingly, Petitioner does not need to send copies of his filings to Respondent or to Respondents counsel. Instead, the Clerk will file Petitioner's documents electronically and send a notice of electronic filing to Respondent's counsel. The notice of electronic filing shall constitute service on Respondent pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. If any electronic service on Respondent is notavailable, Petitioner will be notified and instructed accordingly. However, Petitioner still must attach a certificate of service, pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(C), stating the manner in which service or notice was accomplished on the Respondent. Any paper received by this Court that has not been filed with the Clerk or that fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court; and4) Petitioner must immediately notify the Court of any change in his mailing address. If Petitioner does not notify the Court of any change in mailing address the Court may dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice.See written Order.(VH)
|
| Filing fee: $5.00, receipt number PIA100001207 (VH) |
|
TEXT ORDER: Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to pay the filing fee #3 is GRANTED. Petitioner shall pay the filing fee of $5.00 or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on or before November 30, 2022, or the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner has also filed a motion #2 seeking a transfer to a residential reentry center (RRC) pending resolution of this case. His Petition #1 seeks the same relief and claims that he is being denied placement in a RRC because the BOP deemed him ineligible because he is serving a supervised release sentence. The Court interprets his motion as a request for release pending a decision. "[F]ederal district judges in habeas corpus and section 2255 proceedings have inherent power to admit applicants to bail pending the decision of their case...." Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d 335, 337 (7th Cir. 1985). However, district courts typically grant bail pending post-conviction habeas corpus review only "when the petitioner has raised substantial constitutional claims upon which he has a high probability of success" and "extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist which make the grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective." Douglas v. United States, No. 06CV2113, 2006 WL 3627071, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2006) (citing Landano v. Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3d Cir. 1992)). Here, without pre-judging the merits of Petitioner's 2241 claim, the Court finds that Petitioner has not yet shown a high probability that he will ultimately be able to demonstrate that the Court has the power to order his release into a RRC or that his constitutional rights are being violated. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner has not shown a substantial constitutional claim on which Petitioner has a high probability of success. Petitioner's motion (d/e #2 ) is, therefore, DENIED. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 11/9/2022. (VH)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fee (Filed in letter format) by Petitioner Dominique Gaunichaux. Responses due by 11/15/2022 (VH) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Transfer filed in letter form by Petitioner Dominique Gaunichaux. Responses due by 11/14/2022 (FDS) |
|
TEXT ORDER: Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 but has not paid the filing fee. Petitioner is directed to pay the filing fee of $5.00 within 30 days of this Order. If Petitioner is unable to pay the required filing fee, he may file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. If Petitioner fails to pay the required filing fee or file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis within 30 days, his Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for Writ of Habeas #1 will be dismissed without prejudice by this court. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 10/21/2022. (VH)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Dominique Gaunichaux.(ED) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Gaunichaux v. Warden FCI Pekin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Dominique Gaunichaux | |
| 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: Warden FCI Pekin | |
| Represented By: | W. Scott Simpson |
| 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.
