Williams v. Jones

Filing 19

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 7/8/2013: The petitioner's motion to reinstate his habeas corpus action [# 16 ] is granted. The clerk is directed to: (1) file the amended petition [# 17 ], and (2) substitute Randy Pfister for Eddie Jones as respondent. The respondent is ordered to answer the amended petition or otherwise plead within twenty-one days of the date of this order. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (ao,)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

THOMAS M. DURKIN

CASE NUMBER

06 C 4540

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

7/8/13

United States ex rel. Alvin Williams (#K-52063) vs. Eddie Jones

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The petitioner’s motion to reinstate his habeas corpus action [#16] is granted. The clerk is directed to: (1) file
the amended petition [#17], and (2) substitute Randy Pfister for Eddie Jones as respondent. The respondent is
ordered to answer the amended petition or otherwise plead within twenty-one days of the date of this order.

O [For further details see text below.]

STATEMENT
In 2006, Alvin Williams, an Illinois state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner challenged, on numerous grounds, his conviction for first degree
murder. The court (Andersen, J.) denied the petitioner’s request for equitable tolling and summarily dismissed
the habeas petition on preliminary review as untimely. See Minute Order of December 11, 2006. Although the
court dismissed the petition as time-barred, the dismissal order at the same time granted the petitioner’s motion
for voluntary withdrawal of his “mixed” petition containing both exhausted and non-exhausted claims.
The petitioner now seeks reinstatement, reporting that he has exhausted state court remedies as to all
claims raised in his original habeas petition. His motion is granted. The arguably ambiguous dismissal order may
have left the petitioner with the impression that his petition had been dismissed without prejudice. For that
reason, perhaps, the petitioner did not appeal the final judgment. In view of the equivocal ruling, as well as the
petitioner’s assertion that he is entitled to equitable tolling, he will be granted leave to proceed on his claims.
Untimeliness is an affirmative defense that may be waived if not raised by the respondent. See, e.g., Allen v.
Siebert, 552 U.S. 3, 6-7 (2007) (citations omitted); Grigsby v. Cotton, 456 F.3d 727, 731 (7th Cir. 2006).
The respondent is ordered to answer the amended petition or otherwise plead within twenty-one days of
the date of this order. This preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the State from making
whatever arguments it may wish to present concerning waiver, exhaustion, procedural default, or any other
potential defense.
(CONTINUED)
mjm

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
The petitioner is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care
of the Prisoner Correspondent. The petitioner must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy
(including a complete copy of any exhibits) of every document filed. In addition, the petitioner must send an
exact copy of any court filing to the Chief, Criminal Appeals Division, Attorney General’s Office, 100 West
Randolph Street, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601. Every document filed by the petitioner must include a
certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were sent and the date of mailing. Any paper that is sent directly
to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these instructions may be disregarded by the court or returned
to the petitioner.

Page 2 of 2