Dingus v. Butler et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM Order: Petitioner Dingus is given one more chance, for which purpose he is being sent another set of the In Forma Pauperis Application (Application) forms so that he can promptly comply with this Order. If he does not do so, this Court wi ll not be able to grant Dingus' motion for counsel and will have to deal with this action solely on the basis of Dingus' original Petition and respondent's Answer. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/27/2016:Mailed notice & 3 copies of Application(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
ANTHONY DINGUS (#R-44941),
Petitioner,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16 C 1875

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Here is the self-explanatory opening paragraph to this Court's April 11, 2016
memorandum order ("Order") in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Section 2254") action brought by pro se
prisoner Anthony Dingus ("Dingus") to seek relief from his state court conviction and the
50-year custodial sentence imposed as a result of that conviction:
Less than a week after Anthony Dingus ("Dingus") filed his self-prepared Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") seeking relief from his conviction on two
counts of first degree murder and the 50-year custodial sentence imposed as a
result of that conviction, this Court issued a brief memorandum order in
compliance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts ("Section 2254 Rules") by ordering respondent Warden
Kimberly Butler to file an answer or motion directed to the Petition.
Respondent's Answer has been timely filed, coupled with a seven-inch-thick set
of 22 exhibits -- the relevant portions of the record of Dingus' state court
proceedings.
As the Order went on to state, this Court had then determined that nonlawyer Dingus needed
legal representation to enable him to file a Reply to the Answer, so it sent Dingus three copies of
the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") to allow
Dingus to deal swiftly with that precondition to obtaining such legal representation for him.

In that last respect, the Order concluded by telling Dingus exactly what he had to do as
well as providing him with the forms for doing so:
One preliminary matter must be satisfied by Dingus in the last respect: the
presentation of a filing that confirms his financial inability to retain counsel.1
This Court is accordingly transmitting to Dingus three copies of the Clerk'sOffice-supplied form of In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application"), so that
Dingus can complete and promptly submit to the Clerk's Office two signed
counterparts of the Application (coupled with a directive identifying this action
and its case number, 16 C 1875).
_________________________
1
Dingus' failure to do so posed no problem in conjunction with his initial filing
of the Petition, which required only a $5 fee.
But instead Dingus sent back the attached letter, which was received in the Clerk's Office on
April 20, coupled not with any filled-out Application forms but, instead, with more than 180
pages of other materials that he has decided should be tendered to this Court.
That response (or more accurately nonresponse) is hard to comprehend. Dingus will be
given one more chance, for which purpose he is being sent another set of the Application forms
so that he can promptly comply with the above-quoted final paragraph of the Order. If he does
not do so, this Court will not be able to grant Dingus' motion for counsel and will have to deal
with this action solely on the basis of Dingus' original Petition and respondent's Answer.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: April 27, 2016

-2-

Case: 1:16-cv-01875 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/20/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1506

ATTACHMENT