Moore v. Hardy

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth in the order, the motion of petitioner Edward A. Moore, Jr. 22 for reconsideration of his motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Petitioner Moore shall file his reply by 4/22/13. Moore&# 039;s filing of 2/12/13 18 is terminated as moot, but the court will consider its contents as part of Moore's reply to the state's response to his petition. [For further details see order.] Signed by the Honorable James F. Holderman on 3/12/13. 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, the motion of petitioner Edward A. Moore, Jr. [22] for
reconsideration of his motion for appointment of counsel is denied. Petitioner Moore shall file his
reply by 4/22/13. Moore’s filing of 2/12/13 [18] is terminated as moot, but the court will consider
its contents as part of Moore’s reply to the state’s response to his petition.
Statement
The court denied petitioner Edward Moore’s motion for appointment of counsel in part on
the ground that many of his claims are likely defaulted and that the appointment of counsel would
not do him any good. (Dkt. No. 17) Moore now moves for reconsideration of the court’s order
denying his motion for appointment of counsel on the ground that his filing of February 12, 2013
shows that his claims are not defaulted. The court has reviewed Moore’s filing of February 12, and
has determined that his contentions that his claims are not defaulted are without merit. The court
will consider Moore’s February 12 filing as part of his reply, which is due April 22, 2013.
ENTER:

_______________________________
JAMES F. HOLDERMAN
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Date: March 12, 2013