MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

Although this action brought by Kevin Williams ("Williams") to invoke 28 U.S.C. § 22541 to obtain federal habeas relief has traveled a rocky road due to problems created by Williams himself,2 the most recent problem that has prompted this memorandum order is not at all of his doing. Instead that current problem stems from the next-discussed administrative glitch.

On October 7 the Clerk's Office received a self-prepared hand-printed document that, although it was captioned "In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit," bore only District Court Case No. 15 C 3183 and was headed "Pro Se Petitioner-Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time To File Notice of Appeal." It appears that Williams submitted only the original of that document (see the attached copy of page 4 of Dkt. No. 43 in this District Court),3 which was initially directed to and received in the Seventh Circuit's Clerk's Office and was then delivered to and filed in the District Court, but there the document simply sat, without any transmittal of a copy to this Court's chambers for its attention. As a result of that gap in administrative handling (a subject that this Court is now seeking to have addressed by the Clerk's Office), Williams' motion did not come to this Court's attention until late last week, when it had occasion to order and obtain a printed Motions Report covering pending motions in all cases assigned to its calendar.

Because it appears that Williams' motion for extension, when filed on October 7, was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), and to avoid any possible adverse effect stemming from the above-described delay that was ascribable neither to Williams nor to this Court, this Court orders that the motion (Dkt. No. 43, a copy of which is attached) be treated as Williams' actual Notice of Appeal. That will enable his appeal to go forward, although this Court expresses no view as to its merits other than those stated in its earlier memorandum orders and memorandum opinions at this District Court level.

PRO SE PETITIONER — APPELLANT'S MPTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOW COMES the Prp Se Petitioner-Appellant KEVIN WILLIAMS, Pursuent to FRAP 4(a)(5) OR 4(b), REQUEST FOR AAN EXTENSION OF TIME to File Notice OF APPEAL FOR THE Following REASONS:

1. Petitioner-Appellant was denied HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF Under 28 U.S.C. &sect 2254 ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015

2. Petitioner-Appellant was Also denied Habeas CORPUS RELEEF Pursuent to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) ON September 18, 2015.

3. That a Notice of Appeal was due to be filed on OR about Octiber 18, 2015.

4. That On October 4, 2015, Pontine Correcttional Centre WENT ON AN Administrative Lock Down AND IDOC officials HAVE Advises Petitioner-Appellant that they are not sure of the Date in which tha Lock Down will be over.

5. That Petitooner-Appellant, due to the Administrative Lock Down, is Not Able to Get to the Law Library to get into his Legal boxes and Prepare A Notice of Appeal, Certificate of Appealability, motion for Informa PAUPERIS, AND Docketive statement. 6. That Petitioner-Appellant Reqest a thirty (30) day Extension of time Until 18, 2015 to file A Notice of APPAL AND ACCOMANYING DOCUMENTS.