Subject to anything that might develop in that respect, it
does appear from the Petition that Mumin has exhausted his
available state court remedies as required by Section
2254 (b) (1) (A) (see Petition at 2-4), that the Petition is timely
filed in accordance with Section 2244 (da) (1), and that the
substantive allegations in the Petition set out one or more
claims that are substantively colorable. Accordingly:

1. This Court appoints the Federal Defender Panel to
represent Mumin under the provisions of the Criminal Justice
Act (18 U.S.C. §3006A(a) (2) (B)).?

2, This Court orders respondent Illinois Attorney
General Jim Ryan to file an answer or other pleading in
response to the Petition in accordance with Section 2254
Rules 4 and 5 on or before February 16, 2001.

3. This action is set for an initial status hearing at

9 a.m. February 23, 2001.

Ta hhge. Monat

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 2, 2001

* Naming of the member of that Panel who will be given

responsibility for the representation will take place shortly
hereafter.


Mitaate Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 8155 DATE 2/2001
CASE Dukhan Igraa Jihad Mumin vs. Attorney General
TITLE
Un the following box (a indicate the party tiling the motion, eg, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaiifi-and (by sate briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented,

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]}

(2) im} Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) im} Status hearing{heid/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on __ set for at

(6) QO Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on __ set for at .

(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury triat] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COUFRCP4(m) C)General Rule 21 COFRCP4i(ay(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) so [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mumin is to file a brief amendment
to his Petition on or before January 20,2001. This Court appoints the Federal Defender Panel to represent
Mumin under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act. This Court orders respondent to file an answer
or other pleading in response to the Petition in accordance with Section 2254 Rules 4 and 5 on or before
February 16, 2001. This action is set for a status hearing at 9 a.m. February 23, 2001.

(1) of [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.}

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. aunber of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. he ’
vo ‘otices mailed by judge’s si ; cay
Notified counse? by telephone. dodo ea
Docketing to mail notices BI j I Va
Mail AO 450 form ‘etn \ ditials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
- 22001
courtroom Te SL duemaled ace
SN deputy’s SN
initials °

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DUKHAN IQRAA JIHAD MUMIN, #51778
Petitioner,
Vv. No. 00 C 8155

{Unnamed custodian and]

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ILLINOIS JIM RYAN, )
)
)

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Dukhan Iqraa Jihad Mumin (“Mumin”) has submitted a self-
prepared and prepaid Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -»
(“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C. §2254 (“Section 2254”), challenging
his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to a single
count of forgery (pursuant to a plea agreement, four other counts
against Mumin were dismissed at the time of sentencing). This
memorandum opinion and order will address several matters raised
by the Petition.

To begin with, Mumin has not complied with the requirement
of Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts ("Section 2254 Rules”) in
situations where, as here, an applicant for habeas relief is not
now in custody pursuant to the state judgment against which he
seeks relief but may be subject to such custody in the future.

In this instance Mumin is now serving a 10 to 15 year sentence in

5)

the Nebraska State Penitentiary (a sentence that began on


March 29, 1998 and on which he is scheduled for parole in early
2004--see Petition at 8. While he was serving that sentence,
Mumin was taken to Illinois under the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act to address the forgery and other charges in DuPage
County (id.), and he then entered his guilty plea and was
sentenced here in Illinois.

Under those circumstances, Section 2254 Rule 2(b) requires
Mumin to name two respondents in his Petition--the officer who
now has custody over him (the Warden of the Nebraska prison where
he is serving time) and Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan.
Because Mumin has named the latter but not the former respondent,
he is ordered to file a brief amendment to his Petition curing
that oversight on or before January 20, 2001.

Another matter that relates to Mumin’s dual conviction
situation, but is left unanswered by the Petition, is whether and
to what extent Mumin’s Illinois sentence that he seeks to
challenge here was imposed concurrently with or consecutively to
the preexisting Nebraska sentence. If concurrent sentences are
involved, one question that would perhaps have to be addressed is
whether the availability or unavailability of habeas relief from
the Illinois sentence would make any difference to Mumin at all.
This Court of course expresses no view on that subject, but Mumin
should also include that information as part of the amendment to

his Petition that has been ordered in the preceding paragraph.