MMe Dea Form (v6/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Assi midge i shadur Sitting Judge it Och

nor Magistrate MudEe Milton I, Shadur tian Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 3409 DATE 5/29/2003
CASE USA ex rel. Homer Hanrahan vs. Donald Snyder
TITLE

fin the following box (a) indivate the party filing the motion, ¢.¢,, plaintiff, delendunt, 3rd party pluintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being prescuted. |

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY;

(I) ao Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box ubave.]

(2) QO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due,

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing onset for at

(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for|on set for a:
(6) oO Pretrial conferencefheld/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on set for at.
(7) o ‘Trial[set for/re-set for]on at

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing} held/continued to at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs|by/agreemenv/pursuant to}

FFR¢P4(m) OLoeal Rule vt

cp4i(ay(l) C FRCP41(a)(2).

Notiffed counsel by telephone dave docketed
Dockeling to mail notices.
Mail AQ 450 farm.

Copy to judge/mugistrate judge.

slate rile wots
courtruort

SN deputy’s

He SN
initials

Date/time received in
cgntral Clerk's Office, ailing deputy initials

ao olf [Other docket entry] Enter Supplement to Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court May 23,
2003 memorandum is modified by deleting footnote 3.
(1) [For further detail see order attuctied to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open coutt. Document
Number
No notices required. ake otpatig
oY | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
HOMER HANRAHAN,

Petitioner,
No. 03 C 3409 Be.

MAY 3 9 2003

)

)

)

}

}
v. )

)
DONALD SNYDER, )
)
Respondent. )
SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Footnote 3 to this Court's May 23, 2003 memorandum opinion
and order (“Opinion”) raised a quizzical eyebrow as to just how
the petition for habeas corpus relief (“Petition”) filed by Homer
Hanrahan (“Hanrahan”) had come to this Court's calendar. Now the
Clerk's Office file has been delivered to chambers (previously
this Court had received only the judge's copy of the Petition
itself), and that has provided the answer.

It turns out that Hanrahan had indeed filed his action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois. That was entirely permissible, because he is in
custody at Dixon Correctional Center (“Dixon”), located within
that District.' But the Central District Judge had decided that
a transfer to this District Court, where Hanrahan had originally

been tried and convicted, was more appropriate.

3 Opinion n. 3 had mistakenly identified Dixon as being
within the Western Division of this Northern District of

Tllinois.



That being so, it is just as well that this Court chose to
deal with the substantive aspects of the matter in the Opinion.

It will simply modify the Opinion by deleting footnote 3.

Ce hl Nach

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 29, 2003