Opinion
No. 10 C 4334, USCA No. 10-2979, (see also No. 09 C 7616).
May 9, 2011
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's May 4 memorandum order explained why the very recently submitted motion by pro se federal habeas petitioner Terrell Bell ("Bell") would not be entertained. but a further look at that motion has called this Court's attention to a source of potential confusion that should be cleared up.
Bell has listed two case numbers, 09 C 7616 and 10 C 4334, in the caption of his handwritten motion. But they are really the same case, although this court property listed only the 2010 case number in both its July 30, 2010 memorandum order and the current May 4, 2011 memorandum order:
1. Bell's original Petition carried the 2009 case number, and it was promptly transferred sua sponte to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois because Bell was in custody in that District and the respondent custodian was located there.
2. When the case was then retransferred to this District with this Court's consent, it was assigned a new 10 C 4334 case number as a procedural matter because the 2009 case had been closed statistically.
Hence if and to the extent that Bell's current motion has also been docketed in the 2009 case as the result of his captioning, it is ordered that it be stricken from that docket.