Moore v. Hardy

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 2/25/13. Notice mailed by judge's staff(ntf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD A. MOORE, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
MARCUS HARDY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12 C 8325

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, Chief Judge:
For the reasons explained below, petitioner Edward A. Moore, Jr.’s motion for
appointment of counsel [15] is denied and motion for 60 day extension of time [17] is granted.
Petitioner Moore shall file his reply by 4/22/13.
Statement
Edward Moore, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his 1992, Grundy County, Illinois conviction
for first degree murder, home invasion, residential burglary, aggravated criminal sexual assault,
arson, and robbery on multiple grounds. He now moves for the appointment of counsel. If that
motion is denied, Moore requests an additional 60 days to file his reply.
In habeas cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court may appoint counsel to represent a
financially-eligible petitioner if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B);
see also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Here, petitioner Moore filed an initial
motion for appointment of counsel with his petition. (Dkt. No. 4.) The court denied that motion on
October 18, 2012, stating that the motion was premature and that the court could not determine
whether the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel without reviewing the
government’s answer to the petition. The government has now filed its answer (Dkt. No. 13), and
the court has made a preliminary review of the answer and of Moore’s petition.
Based on that review, the court determines that appointment of counsel is not required by
the interests of justice. First, Moore has been represented at every stage of his direct appeal and of
his state petitions for post-conviction review, so the issues in his case have been amply
investigated and evaluated. As a result, Moore’s petition is comprehensive and coherent,
indicating both that he has a firm grasp on the proceedings and that he has benefited from the work
of counsel who have represented him previously. Moore asserts in his motion that he lost his legal

papers when he was moved from one prison to another, and that he “was given 6 months in the
hole.” Those challenges did not prevent him from filing a lengthy document contesting some of the
factual assertions in the government’s answer. (Dkt. No. 18.) The court sees no impediment to
Moore litigating the case himself.
In addition, the court’s preliminary review of the merits of the case indicate that many of
Moore’s claims may be defaulted, suggesting that appointed counsel would not be able to make
any difference in the outcome. Taylor v. Knight, 223 F. App’x 503, 504 (7th Cir. 2007). The court
thus declines to appoint counsel for Moore. The court will, however, grant Moore an additional 60
days to file his reply, as he requests.
ENTER:

_______________________________
JAMES F. HOLDERMAN
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Date: February 25, 2013

2