Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redding v. Thompson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

January 23, 2018

Lawrence Christopher Redding, Petitioner,
v.
Paul Thompson, Warden of FCI Pekin, Respondent.

          Lawrence Christopher Redding (pro se Petitioner).

          David Michael Maria, Assistant United States Attorney, (for Respondent).

          REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

          Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Lawrence Christopher Redding's “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus § 2241” (“Petition”) (Pet., ECF No. 1) and Respondent Paul Thompson's (“the Government”[1]) “Motion to Dismiss or Transfer” (ECF No. 18). This matter has been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation to the Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and D. Minn. LR 72.1. For the reasons discussed below, this Court recommends that this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In 1992, Petitioner was convicted in this District of three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).[2] (Pet. at 4.) See United States v. Redding, 16 F.3d 298, 299 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Redding v. United States, 105 F.3d 1254, 1254-55 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Based on prior state felony convictions, Petitioner was determined to be an “armed career criminal” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Redding, 16 F.3d at 302. (See Pet. at 4.) “The district court relied on three 1984 Minnesota state court convictions for aggravated robbery, and, as an alternative basis, on three Illinois state court convictions for robbery between 1975 and 1979.” Redding, 16 F.3d at 302. Petitioner was sentenced to 327 months in prison. Id. at 299. (See Pet. at 4.) Petitioner has a projected release date of August 15, 2018. Inmate Locator, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/.

         Petitioner brings the instant Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his confinement is unconstitutional based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016). Petitioner asserts “that the district court improperly relied on the Illinois convictions and on all the Minnesota convictions in classifying him as an Armed Career Criminal.”[3] (Pet. at 6-7.)

         A. Filing of Habeas Petition & Transfer to Minnesota

         Petitioner filed the Petition in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in March 2017.[4] (See generally Pet. at 1.) Petitioner named the United States of America as the respondent. (Pet. at 1.) At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was incarcerated in the Pekin Federal Correctional Institution, located in Pekin, Illinois. (Pet. at 11.)

         The Central Illinois district court conducted a preliminary review of the Petition and directed “Jeff Krueger”[5] to show cause why the writ should not be granted. (ECF No. 2.) Listing “Paul Thompson, Acting Warden” as the respondent, the Government requested an extension of time to respond to the Petition, which was granted. (ECF No. 5; Text Only Order (C.D. Ill. May 9, 2017).) Near the end of May, and in the midst of briefing, Petitioner was released from prison, began a period of supervised release, [6] and moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Gov't's Mot. to Transfer Venue ¶¶ 3-4; see ECF No. 6.)

         Listing “Paul Thompson, Warden” as the respondent, the Government subsequently moved to transfer the Petition to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota or, alternatively, to dismiss the Petition. (See generally Gov't's Mot. to Transfer Venue). In a text order, the Central Illinois district court granted the Government's motion: “Having heard no objection by Petitioner, the Court grants Respondent's Motion and directs the clerk to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for further proceedings.” (Text Only Order (C.D. Ill. July 6, 2017).)

         B. Proceedings in the District of Minnesota

         This matter was transferred to this District in July and Thompson was listed as the respondent based on the Central Illinois docket. (ECF No. 11.) In August, this Court directed the Government to respond to the Petition. (ECF No. 14.)

         Following the transfer, Petitioner pleaded guilty in this District to violating his supervised release in the underlying criminal matter and was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment with no supervised release to follow. Redding, No. 92-cr-116-DSD (J., Aug. 30, 2017, ECF No. 173). The district court recommended incarceration at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. Id. For a period of time following his sentence, Petitioner was confined at the Anoka County Jail, located in Anoka, Minnesota. See Id. (Ltr., Sept. 6, 2017, ECF No. 174-1). (See also ECF No. 16-1.)

         At some point thereafter, Petitioner was transferred back to Illinois.[7] (Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) Towards the end of September, the Government filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, as Petitioner was currently incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center, located in Chicago, Illinois. (Mot. to Dismiss at 2.)

         In November, Petitioner notified this Court that he was back at the Pekin Federal Correctional Institution in Illinois, thus having returned to the very district in which he had initially filed his Petition. (ECF No. 19; see ECF No. 22.) The Federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.