Williams v. Pfister et al

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM Order: Petitioner Williams motion to alter or amend judgment 36 is denied..This Court confirms its denial of a certificate of appealability. Petitioner Williams may of course seek such a certificate from our Court of Appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 22. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/18/2015:Mailed notice(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
This Court never holds any nonlawyer litigant to the standards expected of members of
the bar -- instead it always heeds the teaching of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) that
pleadings and other documents tendered by pro se parties in the course of litigation are to be
viewed through a more generous lens. Unfortunately petitioner Kevin Williams ("Williams")
has disqualified himself from relief under even the most forgiving standards, for he stubbornly
refuses to accept the results mandated by controlling authority that so plainly outlaw his effort to
obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 This time Williams has evidenced that
stubbornness by tendering what he has labeled as his "Pro Se Petitioner's Motion To Alter or

1

All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."

Amend Judgment," a filing that was received in the Clerk's Office on September 14, 2015 but
was not delivered to this Court's chambers until September 17. 2
In brief, Williams just will not accept the message conveyed by this Court's September 1,
2015 opinion (the "Opinion") in reliance on the per curiam opinion in Martinez v. Jones, 556
F.3d 637, 638-39 (7th Cir. 2009) and the opinion in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414
(2005) -- cases that have unequivocally and conclusively caused two of Williams' state court
post-conviction attempts to be found not to have been "properly filed" for tolling purposes under
Section 2244(d)(2), so that his Section 2254 Petition is unquestionably time-barred. Simply put,
Williams' current filing (like his earlier ones) is totally without merit.
Because Williams' prior performance had indicated that he would very likely continue to
pursue his efforts despite this Court's issuance of the Opinion, this Court had briefly deferred its
denial of a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts until it learned whether those expectations would be
realized. But this should be the end of the road even for Williams, so that this Court now
confirms its denial of a certificate of appealability. Williams may of course seek such a
certificate from our Court of Appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 22.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 18, 2015

2

As a result, that new filing crossed in transit this Court's September 15, 2015
memorandum order that responded to an earlier objection that Williams had filed in the Clerk's
Office. That exchange, however, need not be addressed further in this memorandum order.
-2-