Feedback

Robinson V Lillard

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

RICHARD D. ROBINSON,           )                                         
                               )                                         
     Petitioner,               )                                         
                               )                                         
vs.                            )   Case No. 3:25-cv-709-DWD              
                               )                                         
THOMAS   LILLARD,  Warden,  FCI  )                                       
Greenville,                    )                                         
                               )                                         
     Respondent.               )                                         

                    MEMORANDUM & ORDER                                   
DUGAN, District Judge:                                                    
    Petitioner, an inmate at Greenville FCI, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). The Petition is now before the Court for a preliminary 
review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District 
Courts.1 That rule states: “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits 
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the 
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 
Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts; accord Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 663 (2005). 
                 A. Order to Show Cause (Docs. 5 & 7)                    
    As an initial matter, the Court FINDS Petitioner has now complied with the 
requirements of the Order to Show Cause. (Docs. 5 & 7). Specifically, he has filed a 

    1Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts states, “[t]he district 
court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a).” Therefore, 
although the Petition is filed under § 2241 and involves a federal conviction and federal custody, the Rules 
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts may be applied. See Hudson v. Helman, 948 F. Supp. 
810 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (citing Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 431 (N.D. Ill. 1985)). 
Response to the Order to Show Cause, the filing fee, and the Notice and Consent to 
Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form. (Docs. 5, 6, 7; Sealed Doc. 8). 

Petitioner apologizes for the tardiness of those filings, stating he mistakenly sent the 
documents to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. (Sealed Doc. 8, 
pg. 2). Thus, Petitioner’s obligations under the Order to Show Cause are DISCHARGED. 
                 B. Preliminary Review Under Rule 4                      
    Petitioner alleges, in late-1997, he was convicted and sentenced in the U.S. District 
Court for the Southern District of Indiana for crimes related to armed bank robbery and 

the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. (Doc. 1, pgs. 1, 10). In four similar grounds 
for relief, Petitioner alleges the denial of federal time credits under the First Step Act and, 
by extension, the denial of a release to a halfway house after serving the mandatory 
minimum sentence. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2, 6-8). Petitioner unsuccessfully filed administrative 
appeals, in which Petitioner’s Warden reasoned: “[I]nmates are ineligible to earn Federal 

Time Credits (FTC’s) if the current offense is determined to be a ‘serious violent felony,’ 
specifically listed by statute. At this time, all 924(c) offenses are listed as serious violent 
felonies and are ineligible for the application of FTC’s.” (Doc. 1, pgs. 2-3, 10). 
    Given the limited record and arguments available at this time, and despite the 
above-quoted reasoning of Petitioner’s Warden, the Court cannot conclude it “plainly 

appears from the petition” that Petitioner is entitled to no habeas relief. See Rule 4 of the 
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts; accord Mayle, 545 U.S. at 
663. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of Petitioner’s four alleged grounds 
for relief, the Court FINDS the Petition survives a Rule 4 preliminary review. Respondent 
is DIRECTED to file an answer or other pleading by August 22, 2025. Petitioner then has 
until September 22, 2025, to file a Reply. This Memorandum & Order does not preclude 

Respondent from raising any objection or defense to the Petition. Service upon the United 
States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, 
Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service. Petitioner is ADVISED of the obligation to 
keep the Clerk of the Court and Respondent apprised of changes in his address. He shall 
notify the Clerk of the Court and Respondent of any change of address, in writing, within 
14 days. The failure to do so could result in a dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

    SO ORDERED.                                                          
    Dated: July 23, 2025               s/ David W. Dugan                 
                                       ______________________________    
                                       DAVID W. DUGAN                    
                                       United States District Judge