From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WETENDORF v. OTT

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
Jan 14, 2008
No. 07-3210 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-3210.

January 14, 2008


OPINION


This cause is before the Court on Petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (d/e 1). This is the initial consideration of the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

After a review of the Petition, this Court finds that a summary dismissal is not warranted. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4, the Court directs the Attorney General for the State of Illinois to respond to the Petition. The response shall discuss the merits and the procedural posture of the Petition, i.e. whether Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies and/or procedurally defaulted any of his claims. See Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

THEREFORE, the Attorney General for the State of Illinois is ordered to file on or before February 15, 2008, an answer pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases to Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner is granted 21 days from the time the answer is filed to file a reply.

IT IS THEREFORE SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

WETENDORF v. OTT

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
Jan 14, 2008
No. 07-3210 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2008)
Case details for

WETENDORF v. OTT

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL WETENDORF, Petitioner, v. ANDREW K. OTT, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

Date published: Jan 14, 2008

Citations

No. 07-3210 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2008)