Graham v. Lillard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM CHARLES GRAHAM,
No. 22097-041,
Petitioner,
v.
T. LILLARD, Warden,
Respondent.
Case No. 24-cv-2626-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner William Charles Graham’s motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) (Doc. 15). He seeks
relief from the Court’s January 8, 2025, order and judgment (Docs. 11 & 12) dismissing his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the grounds that his constitutional
challenges were not cognizable under § 2241 as explained by Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465
(2023).
In its January 8, 2025, order, the Court further reviewed Graham abusive history of
meritless and/or frivolous challenges to his sentence in light of Jones. It then sanctioned Graham
$200.00 for filing his frivolous petition and for any other frivolous § 2241 petition he files in the
future challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence. It invited him to provide his
financial circumstances within 30 days of the order if he thought $200.00 was excessive. It
further directed the Clerk of Court to refuse any documents tendered by Graham in a § 2241 case
until the original petition had received preliminary review. The pending motion squeaked by
because the Court has already conducted its preliminary review of this petition, which resulted in
the dismissal of this case more than a year ago.
Case 3:24-cv-02626-JPG Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
Relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is available if the Court’s judgment is void because the Court
lacked jurisdiction to enter it. “A void judgment is a legal nullity.” United Student Aid Funds,
Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 270 (2010). “Rule 60(b)(4) applies . . . in the rare instance where
a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due
process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. “Once a
district court decides that the underlying judgment is void, the trial judge has no discretion and
must grant the appropriate Rule 60(b) relief.” Blaney v. West, 209 F.3d 1027, 1031 (7th Cir.
2000).
Graham argues that the Court’s judgment is void because the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over the case and personal jurisdiction over him. He asserts that there was a “defect
in service of process, depriving petitioner of notice and the opportunity to be heard.” Pet’r’s
Mot. 2. He claims he was therefore deprived of due process and the judgment is void.
Graham’s argument is absurd. The Court had personal jurisdiction over Graham because
he brought his grievance to the Court by filing his petition, thus consenting to its exercise of
jurisdiction over him. There was no need for service of process because he was not a defendant
or respondent, and his “notice and opportunity to be heard” were his very § 2241 petition.
However, Graham is right that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his
§ 2241 petition. The gauntlet created by Jones that a petitioner must run before obtaining relief
from his conviction through a § 2241 petition is jurisdictional. Agofsky v. Baysore, 160 F.4th
857, 865 (7th Cir. 2025). If Jones bars the Court from hearing a § 2241 petition, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to do so. However, the Court always has jurisdiction to determine its own
jurisdiction even where it ends up deciding that it has no jurisdiction over the merits. See United
States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002); Gladney v. Pendleton Corr. Facility, 302 F.3d 773, 775
Case 3:24-cv-02626-JPG Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
(7th Cir. 2002). That is the basis of the Court’s decision in this case. Graham’s subject matter
jurisdiction challenge has no merit.
To the extent Graham complains that his petition was dismissed on preliminary review
under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts or that the Court gave him no opportunity to object to sanctions before imposing them,
that is a matter for appeal and does not go to the jurisdiction of the Court to render the judgment
or issue the sanctions.
For these reasons, the Court finds Graham’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion is frivolous and
accordingly DENIES it (Doc. 15). The Court WARNS Graham that if he files any further
frivolous motions for reconsideration in this case or in any other way abuses filing documents in
this case, the Court may impose a filing ban with narrow exceptions necessary to achieve justice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 12, 2026
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-02626-JPG Document 22 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>