Duke v. Warden

Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FANESSA LYNN DUKE,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI GREENVILLE,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:26-CV-89-NJR
ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Petitioner Fanessa Duke is an inmate of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) currently
housed at FCI Greenville within the Southern District of Illinois. (Doc. 7). She brings this
habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id.1 Duke claims the BOP has improperly
calculated her earned time credits. Id. at 6–18. Duke admits she has not exhausted her
administrative remedies. Id. at 2, 10. She argues, however, that administrative exhaustion
would be futile because the process would take too long to afford her relief. Id. at 10–11. She
asks this Court to waive the requirement. Id.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District
Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district judge, “[i]f 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.” Rule 1(b) gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus
1 Duke’s original petition (Doc. 1) was dismissed without prejudice (Doc. 4) for failure to name a
respondent under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and Kholyavskiy v. Achim, 443 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2006).
Case 3:26-cv-00089-NJR Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
cases.
A petition seeking habeas corpus relief is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when
challenging the fact or duration of a prisoner’s confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
490 (1973). An inmate can challenge the calculation of her sentence, including the application
of time credits, in a § 2241 petition. Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 244 (2012).
The Court has reviewed Duke’s petition. Without commenting on the merits of her
claims, it is not plainly apparent that Duke is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Court
ORDERS Respondent Warden, FCI Greenville to answer or otherwise plead on or before
March 24, 2026. This preliminary order to respond does not preclude the Government from
raising any objection or defense it may wish to present. Service upon the United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois,
shall constitute sufficient service.
Duke is ADVISED of her continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and the
opposing party informed of any change in her whereabouts while this action is pending. This
notification must be done in writing and no later than 14 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs. Failure to provide notice may result in the dismissal of this action. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	February 24, 2026
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00089-NJR Document 9 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>