Williams v. Pfister et al

Filing 47

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/27/2015. 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
Although this action brought by Kevin Williams ("Williams") to invoke 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 1 to obtain federal habeas relief has traveled a rocky road due to problems created by
Williams himself, 2 the most recent problem that has prompted this memorandum order is not at
all of his doing. Instead that current problem stems from the next-discussed administrative
glitch.
On October 7 the Clerk's Office received a self-prepared hand-printed document that,
although it was captioned "In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit," bore
only District Court Case No. 15 C 3183 and was headed "Pro Se Petitioner-Appellant's Motion
for Extension of Time To File Notice of Appeal." It appears that Williams submitted only the

1

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

For present purposes it is unnecessary to cite or provide any detail as to this Court's
numerous earlier memorandum orders and memorandum opinions that have led to the action's
being characterized as "snake bitten" in some of those judicial documents.

original of that document (see the attached copy of page 4 of Dkt. No. 43 in this District Court), 3
which was initially directed to and received in the Seventh Circuit's Clerk's Office and was then
delivered to and filed in the District Court, but there the document simply sat, without any
transmittal of a copy to this Court's chambers for its attention. As a result of that gap in
administrative handling (a subject that this Court is now seeking to have addressed by the Clerk's
Office), Williams' motion did not come to this Court's attention until late last week, when it had
occasion to order and obtain a printed Motions Report covering pending motions in all cases
assigned to its calendar.
Because it appears that Williams' motion for extension, when filed on October 7, was
timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), and to avoid any possible adverse effect stemming from
the above-described delay that was ascribable neither to Williams nor to this Court, this Court
orders that the motion (Dkt. No. 43, a copy of which is attached) be treated as Williams' actual
Notice of Appeal. That will enable his appeal to go forward, although this Court expresses no
view as to its merits other than those stated in its earlier memorandum orders and memorandum
opinions at this District Court level.

_________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 27, 2015

3

This District Court's LR 5.2(f) requires the delivery of a paper copy of all filings to any
District Judge who opts for that procedure (a "dealer's choice" election adopted by the District
Court after full discussion), but of course nonlawyers such as Williams cannot be expected to be
aware of that LR and its mandate to transmit a paper copy directly to the District Judge involved.
-2-

Case: 1:15-cv-03183 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/07/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:466

ATTACHMENT

Case: 1:15-cv-03183 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/07/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:467

Case: 1:15-cv-03183 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/07/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:468

Case: 1:15-cv-03183 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/07/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:469

-cv-03183 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/07/15 Page 5 of 6 Pa

-cv-03183 Document #: 43 Filed: 10/07/15 Page 6 of 6 Pa