Smith v. Godinez et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/3/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MILTON SMITH #A81091,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIRECTOR S. A. GODINEZ,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 6912

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court’s October 5, 2011 memorandum opinion and order
(“Opinion”) explained in detail the reasons for its dismissal of
the pro se 28 U.S.C. §2254 (“Section 2254”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) by which Milton Smith (“Smith”)
challenged his 1983 conviction on two murder charges on which he
is currently serving a 60-year custodial sentence.

After Smith

filed a November 7 Notice of Appeal together with his Request for
Certificate of Appealability (“COA”), this Court issued a brief
November 9 statement (“Statement”) that (1) held no COA should
issue as to Smith’s appeal and (2) advised Smith of his right to
tender that same issue to our Court of Appeals for its
consideration.
Now Smith has submitted a self-prepared document captioned
Reconsideration of Statement as to Certificate of Appealability.
But before this Court turns to that subject, it is constrained to
note that Smith has disregarded entirely another matter addressed
in this Court’s Statement.

According to the docket, Smith has

neither paid the required $455 in appellate filing fees nor filed
a properly supported in forma pauperis application.

Accordingly,

as promised in the Statement, this Court “report[s] that
delinquency to the Court of Appeals so it may determine the
appropriate course of action.”
To turn to Smith’s current filing, it speaks only of a
subject that might bear on the timeliness or untimeliness of his
habeas petition.

But this Court’s October 5, 2011 memorandum

opinion and order that concluded by dismissing Smith’s Petition
has made it clear that the Petition was fatally flawed on
substantive grounds wholly independent of any timeliness issue.
Accordingly there is no merit in Smith’s request for
reconsideration.

It is denied, and this Court’s Statement as to

Certificate of Appealability stands--this Court repeats its
earlier holding that no COA should issue as to Smith’s current
appeal.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

January 3, 2012

2