Cora v. Hardy

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/12/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)
TREMAYNE CORA #B79855,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
MARCUS HARDY,
)
)
Respondent.
)

No.

11 C 9230

MEMORANDUM ORDER
As soon as this Court received the self-prepared Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed by Tremayne Cora
(“Cora”), it conducted a preliminary review of that presentation
in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts (“Section 2254
Rules”).

That review revealed that a threshold look at the

Petition’s timeliness was obviously called for--as this Court’s
January 5, 2012 memorandum order pointed out, Cora’s December 2,
2002 post-conviction petition in the state court was said to have
taken fully 6-1/2 years (until May 21, 2009) to have reached the
dismissal stage.

After making a number of unsuccessful efforts

to reach Cora’s post-conviction attorney Lee Boyd, Jr. (“Boyd”)
to obtain some informed input in that respect,1 this Court
perforce had to look instead to the Attorney General’s office for

1

It has since been learned that attorney Boyd had died
recently, explaining the failures of his office to respond to
voicemail messages.

such enlightenment.
Assistant Attorney General David Iskowich has just submitted
a thorough memorandum, replete with appropriate attachments, that
explains the timeliness of the Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§2244(d)(1) and (2).

That makes it necessary to address the

substantive sufficiency of the Petition, as to which this Court
turns to the Attorney General’s office for an answer, to be filed
on or before April 16, 2012.2
One matter remains for discussion:

Cora’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”), which was tendered with the
Petition.

Although Cora has presented an adequate showing of his

financial inability to retain counsel, his submission is lacking
an essential ingredient required by our Court of Appeals--a
statement as to his efforts to obtain counsel on his own.

As and

when that is provided, this Court will be in a position to
consider the Motion.

Cora has suffered no harm by reason of any

delay in that respect, for Section 2254 Rule 5(e) specifies that
any reply that may be needed from Cora necessarily follows the

2

It is hoped that this opinion is not viewed by attorney
Iskowich as qualifying for a “no good deed goes unpunished”
characterization--the Attorney General’s office is obviously in
the best position to provide that analysis in the first instance.
As for the timing of the required answer, it is shorter than this
Court ordinarily allows, but it is hoped that the head start in
reviewing the matter as reflected in the current memorandum will
make it feasible to meet the shorter timetable. If such is not
the case, this Court would of course be prepared to consider a
motion for extension.
2

respondent’s answer called for earlier in this memorandum order.

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

March 12, 2012

3