Taylor v. Williams et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The Court denies Taylor's Motion To Proceed on the Merits of the Case 19 and continues to await the Attorney General's Office's response to the July 20, 2015 memorandum order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/3/2015. Mailed notice(air, ) (For further details see order) Modified on 8/3/2015 (air, ).

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 ORDER
Pro se habeas petitioner Dennis Taylor ("Taylor") has just filed a handwritten motion
with the self-explanatory caption "Motion To Proceed on the Merits of the Case After Attorney
General's Office Ruled Not To Assert a Statute of Limitation Defense" ("Motion"). Because that
filing reflects a basic misunderstanding (although perhaps an understandable one on the part of a
nonlawyer) of the roles of litigants, lawyers and the presiding judge in the justice system, this
memorandum order will explain why the Motion is not well taken.
It is quite correct that the Assistant Attorney General responded to this Court's directive
as to the applicability or inapplicability of a statute of limitations defense with a detailed
analysis, concluding that it appeared inappropriate to assert such a defense under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d). 1 But of course it is the function of the court and not the parties (whether or not acting
through counsel), to determine the law. And what that means in part is that if any party, whether
_________________________
1
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."

or not acting through counsel, has made a mistake on the law, it is the assigned judge's
responsibility to correct that mistake so that any litigant's determinations do not rest on a
defective (or nonexistent) foundation.
In this instance this Court's July 20, 2015 memorandum order explained that its own
independent analysis had "disclosed the existence of a serious -- and very possibly fatal -- gap
that the multiple and convoluted record of Taylor's earlier travels through the state court judicial
system appears to have left in terms of the tolling of limitations under Section 2244(d)(2)." That
evaluation caused the July 20 memorandum order to direct the Attorney General's Office to
consider what this Court's analysis had revealed and "to file an appropriately modified response
on or before August 4, 2015."
Three further comments are in order:
1.

This Court has not yet reached a conclusion on the statute of limitations
issue. That will await the further input requested from the Attorney
General's Office.

2.

What has been said here would have applied with equal force if it had
been Taylor and not defense counsel who had staked out his position
based on such a legal mistake.

3.

Nothing in what this Court has said or done in this action has begun to
address the merits of Taylor's Section 2254 habeas petition if he has
overcome the potential bar of limitations. There has been no
"predetermin[ation of] his fate," a concern voiced by Taylor in his current
Motion before confirming his "faith that the federal juridial [sic] process is
designed to constitutionally correct state court wrongs as well as its own."
-2-

That said, this Court denies Taylor's Motion and continues to await the Attorney General's
Office's response to the July 20, 2015 memorandum order.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 3, 2015

-3-