Williams v. Pfister et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM Order: Order of dismissal remains in effect. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/1/2015:Mailed notice(clw, ) Modified on 7/1/2015 (clw, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
KEVIN WILLIAMS (#R26594),
Petitioner,
v.
RANDY PFISTER, Warden,
Pontiac Correctional Center,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 3183

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On June 17 this Court issued a brief memorandum order ("Order") that dismissed the 28
U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") that had been filed in this District
Court by repeat litigator Kevin Williams ("Williams"). As the Order reflected, that action was
taken on the ground that Williams had failed to comply with the extended timetable of an earlier
April 17 order that had originally directed him "to provide this Court on or before May 8, 2015
with copies of every opinion and order from the Illinois Appellate Court and Supreme Court that
he possesses in connection with his multiple post-conviction efforts." Thereafter Williams had
requested an extension to May 22 because he needed more time to comply. This Court of course
readily granted the extension, but Williams did not meet that deadline either.
Just after this Court's issuance of the Order this District Court received a "Response to
Memorandum Order" that Williams had dated at 10:30 p.m. June 11 but was received on June
17, then a "Supplemental Response to Memorandum Order" that Williams had dated June 15 but
was received on June 18. Williams stated in the Response that on or about May 14 he had given

documents to a correctional officer for mailing to the Clerk's Office (though he said nothing
there about the actual contents of that asserted delivery), then he reiterated in the Supplemental
Response (which did include some documents) that he did in fact comply with the April 17 order
before the May 22 extension date. But the documents that Williams has submitted with that
Supplemental Response do not include any of the documents that he was directed to furnish.
Instead it says that on May 12 (1) he mailed those documents and (2) his mother-in-law paid the
$5 filing fee for the Petitioner.
That assertion is belied by the docket, which shows just two items received by the Clerk's
Office on May 11 and no other entries on or near that date or the asserted May 14 date (except
for his earlier-mentioned motion for an extension to May 22):
1.

a receipt for payment of the $5 filing fee on May 11 (not May 12) [Dkt.
No. 9],

2.

another copy of Williams' original Petition [Dkt. No. 8]. 1

Thus nothing in Williams' Response or Supplemental Response, when compared with
what the docket reflects, supports a need to revisit the order of dismissal. Accordingly it remains
in effect.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 1, 2015

1

As the attached page 1 of that document shows, it bears both the April 9 "Received"
stamp -- the date when the original Petition came to the Clerk's Office -- and May 11 "Filed"
stamp. That plainly confirms the fact of a May 11 refiling of the original Petition, not any part of
the documentation called for by the Order.
-2-

Case: 1:15-cv-03183 Document #: 8 Filed: 05/11/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:31

FILED

5/11/2015

BRUTON
THOMAS G.TRICT COURT
, U.S. DIS
CLERK

ATTACHMENT