Taylor v. Williams et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: This Court has scheduled the matter on its calendar for June 26, 2015, a date selected in the hope that it will enable the Assistant Attorney General both to appear and to make arrangements for plaintiff Taylor to participate telephonically. Memorandum Order entered on 6/23/2015 is vacated. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/25/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
DENNIS TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
TARRY WILLIAMS, Custodian, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 4969

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On June 4, 2015 Dennis Taylor ("Taylor") filed a self-prepared 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") that challenged his state court conviction on
multiple serious crimes and the consequent lengthy sentences that he is now serving. This
Court's threshold review of the Petition (a practice that it follows in every case newly assigned to
its calendar) quickly revealed that the Petition was meticulous not only in reciting the several
steps that had marked Taylor's travels through the state criminal justice system -- in both the
pre-conviction and post-conviction stages -- before he turned to this federal court for relief but
also in specifying the dates applicable to those steps (the apparent hallmark of a petitioner who
had been careful to maintain and retain all of the materials relevant to that history).
This Court, taking Taylor at his word as to the facially comprehensive state court history
and the dates involved, swiftly determined that on his own presentation the Petition had been
filed more than a year too late to come within the one-year limitation period prescribed by
_________________________
1
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."

Section 2244(d)(1). Accordingly this Court promptly issued a June 9 memorandum opinion and
order ("Opinion") (1) that explained the analysis unequivocally called for by Taylor's own
Petition and (2) because the limitation period is not jurisdictional in nature, that ordered the
Illinois Attorney General's Office to file on or before June 26 a statement either asserting or
waiving the statute of limitations defense.
To this Court's surprise the Assistant Attorney General who had been assigned to the case
filed a motion for an extension of time to enable that counsel to review the state court record.
Because as indicated earlier Taylor's own Petition, when accepted as accurate, carried its own
death warrant in limitations terms, this Court quickly issued a June 23 memorandum order (the
"June 23 Order") rejecting that motion and renewing the Opinion's directive for a June 26
response.
Then, mirabile dictu, a few hours later on the same June 23 date the Clerk's Office
delivered to this Court's chambers 2 a bulky self-prepared filing by Taylor captioned "Reply to
Memorandum Opionion [sic] and Order" ("Reply") that revealed -- reciting chapter and verse -- a
substantial number of additional procedures that had been taken by Taylor (or, as to some, taken
on his behalf by appointed counsel) in the state court system that had not even been hinted at, let
alone mentioned, in his original Petition. Taylor had noticed that Reply up for presentment on
June 25.
On its face Taylor's new presentation certainly calls for further review. Accordingly this
Court has scheduled the matter on its calendar for June 26, a date selected in the hope that it will
enable the Assistant Attorney General both to appear and to make arrangements for Taylor to
_________________________
2
It is difficult to understand why that filing, which had been received in the Clerk's
Office on June 18, took nearly three working days to find its way to this Court's chambers.
-2-

participate telephonically. In the meantime that also plainly calls for vacation of the June 23
Order, and this Court so orders. 3

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 25, 2015

_________________________
3
All due apologies are extended to the Assistant Attorney General for issuance of the
June 23 Order, which as indicated in the text was the inadvertent result of this Court's having
taken Taylor at his word in the first instance.
-3-