Snipes v. Jones et al

Filing 45

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 5/25/2011: For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's motion to reconsider 44 is denied. (For further details see written opinion.) Mailed notice (ma, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan

CASE NUMBER

07 C 4013

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

5/25/2011

Leon Snipes (B-12804) vs. Eddie Jones, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion to reconsider [44] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
This matter is before the court on Petitioner Leon Snipes’ (Snipes) pro se motion to reconsider.
Snipes brought the instant action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Section 2254
Petition), and on January 23, 2008, the prior judge in this case granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss the
Section 2254 Petition. Snipes requested a certificate of appealability from the prior judge in this case, and
the request was denied on July 11, 2008. Snipes then requested a certificate of appealability from the
Seventh Circuit, and the request was denied on October 20, 2008. On February 23, 2011, Snipes filed a pro
se motion to reinstate and a pro se motion for recusal and substitution of judge. On March 24, 2011, this
court denied the motion to resinstate and the motion for recusal and substitution of judge. Snipes now
requests that the court reconsider its March 24, 2011 ruling.
Snipes contends that he is proceeding without the aid of counsel, but Snipes is not entitled to be
represented by counsel in this civil proceeding and he has not shown that an appointment of counsel is
warranted. Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 264 (7th Cir. 1997); Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654, 661 (7th
Cir. 2007). In addition, the court accorded all of Snipes’ pro se filings, including the instant motion, a liberal
construction. See Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505, 512 (7th Cir. 2004)(stating that “[a]s [the plaintiff] was
07C4013 Leon Snipes (B-12804) vs. Eddie Jones, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
without counsel in the district court, his habeas petition is entitled to a liberal construction”); Greer v. Board
of Educ. of City of Chicago, Ill., 267 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2001) (indicating that a court should “liberally
construe the pleadings of individuals who proceed pro se”). Snipes includes in his instant motion only
general statements regarding bias and fairness but Snipes fails to show that this court erred in denying
Snipes’ prior motions. Therefore, the motion to reconsider is denied.

07C4013 Leon Snipes (B-12804) vs. Eddie Jones, et al.

Page 2 of 2