Williams v. Pfister et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/29/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, )

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 has been more than patient in dealing with the repeated efforts by petitioner
Kevin Williams ("Williams") to obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 after what
have been demonstrated to be his fatally tardy state post-conviction efforts challenging his
conviction and sentencing. Most recently this Court's September 18, 2015 memorandum order
rejected Williams' Section 2254 Petition as time-barred under decisions by our Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court whose teaching confirmed that two of Williams' state court
post-conviction attempts were not "properly filed" for tolling purposes under Section
2244(d)(2). 2

1

All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."
2

That ruling, issued in response to Williams' filing of his "Pro Se Petitioner's Motion To
Alter or Amend Judgment," echoed what this Court had already held and explained in its
September 1, 2015 opinion.

Now Williams has submitted what he captions as "Pro Se Petitioner's Supplement to
Motion To Alter or Amend Judgment," in which supplement he essentially asserts that the
federal authorities on which this Court had relied were somehow sapped of any force because
they antedated an Illinois Supreme Court decision in People v. Tidwell, 236 Ill. 2d 150, 923
N.E.2d 728 (2010), which dealt with a procedural aspect of the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing
Act provision (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)) that permits only one such post-conviction petition to be
filed without court leave. But as always, Williams has misread the holding and thrust of the
relevant authorities.
Most particularly, in his attempt to convert Tidwell's treatment of a different legal
question into a holding that is somehow applicable to the situation that he faces here, Williams
has failed to recognize that three of the four denials of leave to appeal by the Illinois Supreme
Court that were attached as exhibits to this Court's September 15, 2015 memorandum order
postdate the Tidwell decision. Those denials, which did not send Williams' case back to the
lower courts as was done in Tidwell, but simply rejected his multiple post-conviction efforts as
directed by 725 ILCS 5/122-1(f), really negate Williams' effort to urge that the statute should be
read out of existence in his case.
Accordingly Williams' most recent submission -- his "Supplement to Motion" -- is
rejected as well. And this Court adds the long-past-due statement that no further filings from
Williams will be accepted in this case.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: September 29, 2015
-2-