William Charles Graham v. T. Lillard, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies William Charles Graham’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) seeking relief from a judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The court rejects Graham’s claims that the judgment was void for lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction, finds the motion frivolous, and warns that further abusive filings may result in a filing ban.

Holdings

1. The court had personal jurisdiction over Graham because he invoked the court's jurisdiction by filing his petition and thereby consented to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.
2. Service of process was not required to provide Graham with notice and an opportunity to be heard because he initiated the § 2241 proceeding by filing the petition.
3. The court had jurisdiction to determine whether Graham's § 2241 petition was barred by Jones v. Hendrix, even though the jurisdictional requirements for merits relief under § 2241 were not satisfied.
4. Alleged errors in dismissing the petition on preliminary review or imposing sanctions without an opportunity to object are not jurisdictional defects and therefore do not support Rule 60(b)(4) relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prior judgment was void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Graham.
2. Whether the absence of service of process deprived Graham of notice and an opportunity to be heard so as to render the judgment void.
3. Whether the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to dismiss Graham's § 2241 petition and impose sanctions.
4. Whether alleged errors concerning preliminary review and the procedure for imposing sanctions are jurisdictional defects cognizable under Rule 60(b)(4).

Disposition

other