Conrad v. Simkins
| David Conrad |
| Acting Warden, FCI Pekin |
| 1:2025cv01152 |
| April 22, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 Letter from David Conrad regarding Status of Ongoing BOP Retaliation and Conrad's Health (JA) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin S. Bruce on 9/22/2025: Petitioner's Motion #17 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner's request for an extension of time is granted. His reply brief is now due by November 7, 2025. Petitioner also requests "all government emails, communication, internal memorandums from March 26 until now to show perjury of BOP staff and further show/fight my case." (#17 at 7). However, "[d]iscovery in habeas corpus actions is extremely limited." See Glascoe v. Bezy, 421 F.3d 543, 549 (7th Cir. 2005). "A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course." Bracy v. Bramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases allows habeas corpus petitioners to conduct civil discovery "if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise." Id.; See also Rule 1(b) (allowing a district court to apply the rules to habeas corpus petitions other than those under 28 U.S.C. 2254). "Good cause" means that the petitioner must make specific factual allegations that demonstrate that there is good reason to believe that the petitioner may, through discovery, be able to garner specific evidence to entitle him to relief. Id. at 90809. The factual allegations supporting a habeas petitioner's discovery request "must not be speculative or conclusory," as "discovery is not intended to be a fishing expedition." Higgason v. Lemmon, 6 Fed. App'x 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2001). A habeas petitioner's speculation that the discovery sought would support his claims does not constitute "good cause" for the discovery. See Jones v. United States, 231 Fed. App'x 485, 488 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Petitioner's very broad request will not logically help him procure evidence in support of his claim that his good time credits were revoked without due process. Accordingly, this request is denied. (JA)
|
| Filing 18 MOTION for Order of Restraint by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 10/1/2025 (JA) |
| Filing 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply as to #13 Response to Motion by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 9/30/2025 (JA) |
| Filing 16 Mail Returned as Undeliverable re 8/11/2025 docket entry sent to David Conrad. (JA) |
| Filing 15 MOTION to Conserve Evidence/Submit PLRA Exhibit and Information Request by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 9/29/2025. (JA) |
| Filing 14 Appendix re #13 Response to Motion, (Appendix to Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) by Acting Warden, FCI Pekin. (Simpson, W.) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE to Motion re #7 MOTION, #1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) filed by Respondent Acting Warden, FCI Pekin. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Eliasar Herrera, #2 Declaration of Danielle Matz)(Simpson, W.) |
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 8/11/2025. Respondent's Motion to Substitute Respondent #12 is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to replace Jim Simkins with Acting Warden, FCI Pekin as Respondent. (AEJ)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to Substitute Party, Jim Simkins, RRC Director to be replaced by Acting Warden, FCI Pekin, by Respondent Jim Simkins. Responses due by 8/21/2025 (Simpson, W.) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by W. Scott Simpson on behalf of Jim Simkins (Simpson, W.) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 8/7/2025 (JA) |
Filing 9
ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 7/7/25: 1) Petitioner's Motion for Counsel #2 is DENIED with leave to renew and Petitioner's Motion to Seal Documents #3 is DENIED;2) Respondent has sixty (60) days to file a response to the Petition #1 and Supplemental Petitions #7 , #8 ; 3) After Respondent has filed its response, Petitioner may file any traverse or reply to Respondent's response within thirty (30) 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; and 4)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 FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (JA)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Response to motion deadline corrected. Responses due by 9/5/2025. (JA) |
| Filing 8 Supplemental 2241 filed by Petitioner David Conrad. (AEJ) |
| Filing 7 Supplemental Motion by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 6/23/2025 (DW) |
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/9/2025. The motion #5 and Trust Fund Ledger #6 has been entered in this case in error. The motion bears the same case number as this case (25-1152), however, the case number in the motion refers to appellate case number related to the appeal of case 24-cv-3020. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE the Motion #5 and Trust Fund Ledger #6 from this case and file them in case 24-cv-03020. (AEJ)
|
| Filing fee: $5.00, receipt number PIA100006834. (VH) |
| Filing 6 *STRICKEN PER 6/9/25 TEXT ORDER*+++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER by David Conrad. (DS) Modified on 6/9/2025 to strike (AEJ). |
| Filing 5 *STRICKEN PER 6/9/25 TEXT ORDER* MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 6/10/2025. (DS) Modified on 6/9/2025 to strike (AEJ). |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin S. Bruce on 5/7/2025 directing the Petitioner 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. Section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus #1 will be dismissed without prejudice by this court.(AEJ)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 5/16/2025 (AEJ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Seal Documents by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 5/5/2025 (AEJ) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Request Counsel by Petitioner David Conrad. Responses due by 5/5/2025 (AEJ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by David Conrad.(AEJ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Conrad v. Simkins | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: David Conrad | |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Acting 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 | [ 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.
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin S. Bruce on 9/22/2025: Petitioner's Motion #17 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner's request for an extension of time is granted. His reply brief is now due by November 7, 2025. Petitioner also requests "all government emails, communication, internal memorandums from March 26 until now to show perjury of BOP staff and further show/fight my case." (#17 at 7). However, "[d]iscovery in habeas corpus actions is extremely limited." See Glascoe v. Bezy, 421 F.3d 543, 549 (7th Cir. 2005). "A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course." Bracy v. Bramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases allows habeas corpus petitioners to conduct civil discovery "if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not otherwise." Id.; See also Rule 1(b) (allowing a district court to apply the rules to habeas corpus petitions other than those under 28 U.S.C. 2254). "Good cause" means that the petitioner must make specific factual allegations that demonstrate that there is good reason to believe that the petitioner may, through discovery, be able to garner specific evidence to entitle him to relief. Id. at 90809. The factual allegations supporting a habeas petitioner's discovery request "must not be speculative or conclusory," as "discovery is not intended to be a fishing expedition." Higgason v. Lemmon, 6 Fed. App'x 433, 436 (7th Cir. 2001). A habeas petitioner's speculation that the discovery sought would support his claims does not constitute "good cause" for the discovery. See Jones v. United States, 231 Fed. App'x 485, 488 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, Petitioner's very broad request will not logically help him procure evidence in support of his claim that his good time credits were revoked without due process. Accordingly, this request is denied. (JA)