Thompson v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, MARION FCI,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:26-cv-258-DWD
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Petitioner, an inmate at Marion FCI, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). The Petition is 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).
On November 6, 2015, Petitioner was charged by a Superseding Indictment in the
Western District of New York with: (1) sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion under
18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(1) (Count 1); (2) sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion
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 can 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)).
Case 3:26-cv-00258-DWD Document 5 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
under § 1591(a) and (b)(1) (Count 2); (3) sex trafficking a minor by force, fraud, or
coercion under § 1591(a), (b)(1), and (b)(2) (Count 3); and (4) obstruction of a sex
trafficking investigation under § 1591(d) and 2. See U.S. v. Thompson, No. 14-cr-228, Doc.
33 (W.D. N.Y. Nov. 6, 2015). On April 7, 2016, Petitioner pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to Count 3 of the Superseding Indictment. See id. at Doc. 73. On March 8, 2017,
Petitioner was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment, restitution, and 60 months of
supervised release. See id. at Doc. 103. Judgment was entered on March 14, 2017. See id.
Now, Petitioner challenges the process for certain disciplinary proceedings. (Doc.
1, pgs. 1-2). Specifically, he challenges an incident report, relating to the possession of a
hazardous tool, under program statement 5270.09CN-1. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2, 4, 6-7). That
program statement relates to hearing delays. (Doc. 1, pg. 2). Petitioner indicates he
attempted administrative appeals. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2-3). He requests “that incident report
number 4153970 be expunged and all sanctions be restored.” (Doc. 1, pg. 8).
Given the limited record and arguments available at this time, it does not “plainly
appear[] 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 the Petition, the Court FINDS
the Petition survives a Rule 4 preliminary review. Respondent is DIRECTED to file an
answer or other pleading by April 20, 2026. Petitioner then has until May 20, 2026, 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
Case 3:26-cv-00258-DWD Document 5 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
sufficient service. However, the Court observes that counsel has already appeared for
Respondent. (Doc. 4). Petitioner is ADVISED of the obligation to keep the Clerk of the
Court and Respondent apprised of changes to his address. Petitioner shall notify the
Clerk of the Court and Respondent of address changes, in writing, within 14 days. The
failure to do so could result in a dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2026
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
s/ David W. Dugan
Case 3:26-cv-00258-DWD Document 5 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>