Aguilar v. Marton et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/10/2012. (lw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)
CARLOS H. AGUILAR #R-05125,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHN MORTON, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)

No.

12 C 9640

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Carlos Aguilar (“Aguilar”) has used the Clerk’s-Officeprovided form of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”)
to bring this pro se action, in which he has completed the form
with several handwritten pages that this Court has found quite
incomprehensible.

What follows here represents this Court’s best

effort to make some order out of Aguilar’s sprawling filing.
Before this memorandum order turns to that subject, however,
a bit should be said about another Clerk’s-Office supplied form,
the In Forma Pauperis Application (“Application”) that Aguilar
has also submitted.

Although he has not accompanied the

Application (as is generally required of prisoners by 28 U.S.C.
§1915) with a printout of transactions in his trust fund account
at the Illinois River Correctional Center (“Illinois River”),
where he is now in custody, that failure is of no
consequence--Aguilar is obviously unaware that the only filing
fee for a federal habeas petition by a state prisoner is the
modest sum of $5.

Accordingly he is ordered to pay that amount

to the Clerk of this District Court on or before December 21,
2012.1
As for the Petition itself, it reflects that Aguilar was
convicted in the year 2000 or 2001 of predatory criminal sexual
assault and sentenced to a 15-year term.

That was followed by an

unsuccessful appeal to Illinois’ First District Appellate Court,
where he charged “wrongful prosecution and corruption and police
misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct,” followed by an effort
to bring the case to the Illinois Supreme Court, where leave to
appeal was assertedly “denied corruptly” despite his having
charged “Appellate Court corruption of fixing cases and
conspiracy with corrupt County Judges with intent to ‘fix’
cases.”
Now Aguilar is at or near the end of his prison term
(Petition Pt. III ¶1(A) says his term expired November 14,

1

Indeed, it will probably be easier for the prison
authorities at Illinois River to transmit that payment in
compliance with this Court’s direction than for Aguilar to make
the arrangements necessary for that purpose. Hence a copy of
this memorandum order is being sent to those prison authorities
so that they may remit the $5 filing fee, identifying this
action’s case number (12 C 9640) and sending the payment to:
Clerk, United States District Court
219 South Dearborn Street - 20th Floor
Chicago IL 60604
ATTN:

Fiscal Department
2

2012)2), and he complains that he wishes to be deported to Mexico
but the Illinois prison authorities and the federal immigration
authorities are not honoring his demand.

According to Aguilar

the officials have “corruptly file[d] false parole violations
charges” against him, assertedly “trying to collect more funds
from taxpays [sic] by holing [sic] him more time illegally.”
Aguilar is consistent if nothing else.

Just as he has

ascribed his unsuccessful appeals from his original conviction to
asserted corruption at every judicial level, so his description
of his current situation is replete with charges of bogus and
corrupt activity on the part of the officials whom he now
targets.

In Twombly-Iqbal terms, his charges lack the requisite

plausibility, and he is attempting a pejorative collateral attack
on administrative proceedings that are not yet exhausted.
Simply put, Aguilar’s petition is not the stuff of which
federal habeas relief can fairly be fashioned.

In the language

of Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, “it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court,” so that the same Rule 4 mandates
that “the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to

2

As the Petition explains, 85% of the specified term had
to be served.
3

notify the petitioner.”

This Court so orders.

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

December 10, 2012

4