McQueen v. Hartshorn
Petitioner: Jermaine McQueen
Respondent: Patrick Hartshorn
Not Classified By Court: Habeas Attorney General
Case Number: 2:2021cv02312
Filed: December 15, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Colin Stirling Bruce
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 20, 2022 Opinion or Order TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 1/20/22. The court received Petitioner's letter #4 on 12/27/21, in which Petitioner indicated that he is in the process of preparing a new habeas petition and would like to proceed with the instant case. Therefore, if Petitioner intends to file an amended petition he should file the petition under case no. 21-2312. If Petitioner does not file an amended petition, then this case will remain closed pursuant to the court's Text Order entered 12/23/21.(BMG)
December 27, 2021 Filing 4 Letter to court from plaintiff Jermaine McQueen. (BMG)
December 23, 2021 Opinion or Order TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 12/23/21. Petitioner's Motion #3 filed 12/22/21 is GRANTED. The Clerk has mailed Petitioner a 2254 packet pursuant to this court's text order entered 12/20/21, and the Petition #1 is DISMISSED without prejudice at Petitioner's request. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis #2 is DENIED as MOOT. (BMG)
December 22, 2021 Filing 3 Motion for Status of Case by Petitioner Jermaine McQueen. Responses due by 1/5/2022. (BMG)
December 22, 2021 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Petitioner Jermaine McQueen. Responses due by 1/5/2022. (BMG)
December 20, 2021 Opinion or Order Text Order entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 12/20/2021. Petitioner McQueen has filed a letter (d/e #1 ) with the Court, which has been construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner's letter seeks legal advice as to which form he should use to pursue relief in this Court when challenging aspects of his state custody. As Petitioner was informed in his previous case before Judge Myerscough, Case No. 21-2034, because he is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, any request for habeas relief is governed by 28 U.S.C. 2254. See Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000). Section 2254 and all associated statutory requirements apply no matter what statutory label a prisoner has given the case. Id. However, before this Court may recharacterize Petitioner's letter as a 2254 petition, the Court must notify Petitioner that such a recharacterization may bar a later habeas challenge because 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) prohibits second or successive 2254 petitions. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 385 (2003). The Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw his petition or amend it to contain all 2254 claims he wishes to assert, in order to avoid a bar on any additional claims as second or successive. Accordingly, Petitioner must file a statement informing the Court whether he consents to the recharacterization of his letter as a 2254 petition. Petitioner may file an amended 2254 Petition in this case as well if he wishes. If Petitioner does not inform the Court regarding his consent within thirty (30) days of this Order, he will be deemed to have withdrawn his petition and the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice. If Petitioner wants to continue with this case as a 2254 Petition, he shall also pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a petition for proceeding in forma pauperis, as directed in the Court's previous text order. The Clerk is also directed to send Petitioner a 2254 Packet. (Miscellaneous deadline set for 1/19/2022).(BMG)
December 16, 2021 Opinion or Order TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Bruce 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. 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in State Custody #1 will be dismissed without prejudice by this court. (BMG)
December 15, 2021 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Jermaine McQueen. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(BMG)

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: McQueen v. Hartshorn
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jermaine McQueen
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: Patrick Hartshorn
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 ]
Not classified by court: Habeas Attorney General
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?