Cora v. Hardy

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/5/2012. (nf, )

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
Tremayne Cora (“Cora”) has used the form of Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) supplied by the Clerk’s Office
to proceed against Stateville Correctional Center Warden Marcus
Hardy in Cora’s statutory challenge to his July 2000 conviction
on a first-degree murder charge on which he is currently serving
a 35-year sentence.

Before this Court undertakes the threshold

substantive review called for by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, however,
two preliminary matters should be addressed.
First, Cora has submitted an In Forma Pauperis Application
(“Application”), seeking both to proceed without prepayment of
the filing fee and to obtain the appointment of counsel to
represent him pro bono publico.

But as to the first-stated

purpose of the Application, Cora is obviously unaware that the
filing fee for such a Petition is only the modest sum of $5.
Accordingly the Application is denied, with Cora being expected
to pay that modest sum on or before January 26.

More importantly, Petition Pt. I calls for a further inquiry
as to the timeliness requirement imposed by 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)
and (2).1

Petition Pt. I ¶4 reflects that the direct review of

Cora’s conviction was concluded on August 28, 2002, 90 days after
the ultimate state court affirmance (that 90-day add-on reflects
the time within which Cora could have applied to the United
States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, even though he did
not do so).

Because Cora then filed a state post-conviction

petition on December 2, 2002 (Petition Pt. II ¶¶1.A and 1.B), 3
months and 4 days had then run on the one-year limitations clock
before the tolling provision of Section 2244(d)(2) came into play
by virtue of that filing.
What is difficult to understand is that Petition Pt. II
¶¶1.E and 1.F would suggest that it then took 6-1/2 years (from
December 2, 2002 to May 21, 2009) for the post-conviction
proceeding to reach the stage that Cora describes as “dismissal.”
At what level that intermediate dismissal took place is unclear,
because according to Petition Pt. II. ¶1.I the final disposition
of the state post-conviction proceeding took place on May 25,
2011.
From that May 25 date to December 22, 2011, the day on which
Cora signed the Petition (for present purposes that date may be

1

All further references to Title 28’s provisions will
simply take the form “Section--.”
2

considered the filing date under the “mailbox rule”), another 6
months and 27 days ran on the one-year limitations clock.

Hence

only a few months during which the state proceedings might not
have been “pending” within the meaning of Section 2244(d)(2)
would cause the current Petition to have been untimely filed.
To enable this Court to address the ultimate timeliness
issue, some further explanation is needed.

To that end Petition

Pt. IV(F) lists the law firm of Gerren, Jordan, Boyd as having
handled the state post-conviction proceedings.

Although no such

law firm is listed in the current Sullivan’s Law Directory, Lee
Boyd, Jr. (an attorney who has handled criminal cases before this
Court in the past) is listed there as practicing at the exact
address that Cora has specified for that firm.
It would seem likely that the lawyers who handled the case
would be better able to provide specific information about the
relevant dates in the processing of the post-conviction
proceeding than Cora himself.2

Accordingly this Court

respectfully requests that on or before January 26, 2012 attorney
Boyd provide a filing that sets out the relevant timetable from
which this Court can make the necessary calculation under
Section 2244(d).

It will then determine the appropriate next

2

Of course, if Cora does have that information readily
available, this Court would welcome input on the subject from him
as well.
3

step.

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

January 5, 2012

4