Zetzman v. Lillard

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois
DecidedMay 23, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-04008
StatusUnknown

This text of Zetzman v. Lillard (Zetzman v. Lillard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Zetzman v. Lillard, (S.D. Ill. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

NICOLE KATHERINE ZETZMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 3:23-cv-4008-RJD ) T. LILLARD, ) ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER DALY, Magistrate Judge:

On December 22, 2023, Petitioner, formerly incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois (“FCI Greenville”), filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). When the Petition was filed, the Court entered a Notice and Order (Doc. 2), which advised Petitioner, inter alia, “if your address changes, you must notify the Court within fourteen days of the change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of your case.” (Doc. 2). On January 4, 2024, the Court found the Petition survived a preliminary review; therefore, Respondent was served with process and ordered to file an answer or other pleading on or before February 5, 2024. (Doc. 4). Respondent timely filed a response, and thereafter, the Court ordered that Petitioner shall have until March 1, 2024, to file a reply. (Doc. 12). The Court mailed the Order found at Doc. 12 to Petitioner’s last known address on January 31, 2024. On February 27, 2024, Respondent filed a motion advising the Court that Petitioner had been transferred to a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) operated through Volunteers of America, located at 1771 Kent Street, Roseville, MN 56113, which is within the purview of the BOPs Minneapolis Residential Reentry Management field office. (Doc. 14). Respondent asked to substitute Katie Murdock, BOPs Minneapolis Residential Reentry Manager, as the proper respondent in this habeas case. (Id.). Respondent further informed the Court that a courtesy copy of the Response (Doc. 9), as well as a copy of the docket sheet to include the Court's text Orders at Docs. 11 and 12, would be sent to the Petitioner at her new location. (Id.). Thereafter, the Court mailed a copy of the Order found at Doc. 12 to the address Respondent provided, which was again

returned "undeliverable" by the USPS. (Doc. 15). By April 23, 2024, Petitioner had not filed a notice of change of address, a reply in support of her petition, or a response to the motion to substitute, and the Court entered an Order to Show Cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for the failure to prosecute and the failure to comply with the Court's Orders at Doc. 2 by updating her current address. (Doc. 16). The Court mailed the Order to Show Cause to Petitioner’s last known address, to the address provided by Respondent in the Motion to Substitute, and the RRM Minneapolis’s address where Petitioner appeared to have been transferred at that time. (Doc. 17). To date, Petitioner has not filed a reply in support of her Petition and has not responded to Respondent’s Motion to Substitute or the Court's Order to Show Cause. On May

22, 2024, the Order to Show Cause was returned undeliverable. (Doc. 17). According to the Bureau of Prison’s website, Petitioner was released from custody on May 9, 2024, which might render her petition moot. See D.S.A. v. Cir. Ct. Branch 1, 942 F.2d 1143, 1147 (7th Cir. 1991) (a habeas corpus petition becomes moot when it attacks only a sentence that already has been served). In any event, since Petitioner still has taken no steps to prosecute the case since the time she filed her consent to the undersigned conducting all proceedings in this case, and she is now in violation of two Court Orders (Docs. 2 and 16), the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); James v. McDonald's Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005) (“A district court has the authority under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to enter a sua sponte order of dismissal for lack of prosecution.”). Respondent’s Motion to Substitute (Doc. 14) is TERMINATED. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2024

s/ Reona J. Daly Hon. Reona J. Daly United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zetzman v. Lillard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zetzman-v-lillard-ilsd-2024.