Morris v. Hutchinson et al
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/22/2017. Mailed notice. (bg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BARRY MORRIS (N-42509),
USCA Case No. 17-1761
(Dist. Ct. Case No. 16 C 10243)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 8, 2016 this Court issued a memorandum opinion and order (the
"Opinion," Dkt. No. 7) that dismissed the self-prepared 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus ("Petition") filed by Barry Morris ("Morris"), in which he "charge[d] he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel when his lawyer did not raise a defense of insanity." 2 As
the Opinion stated at page 2:
This Court has conducted a detailed preliminary review as called for by Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
("Section 2254 Rules"). It finds that the careful and comprehensive analysis
conducted by the Illinois Appellate Court properly applied the standard prescribed
by the seminal opinion in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) in
conducting a thorough consideration of the issues involved here.
Then the Opinion at page 2 went on to state, before quoting at some length from the opinion of
our Court of Appeals cited in the following sentence:
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --,"
omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §."
Despite the fact that Morris' conviction dated back a full 11 years before he filed the
Petition, the Opinion at page 1 explained that it was timely under Section 2244(d)(1).
Indeed, the extended treatment of the applicable standard of federal review as set
out in Ben-Yisrayl v. Buss, 540 F.3d 542, 546, 547-48 (7th Cir. 2008) (numerous
case citations omitted) could well have been written for this case.
Now Morris has taken an appeal and has applied for leave to do so in forma pauperis
("IFP"). As is customary in such situations, the Court of Appeals has referred that application to
this District Court for its consideration. And because Morris' IFP application included deposits
to his trust fund account at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard," where he is in custody) for
only the first two months of the six-month period referred to in Section 1915(b)(1), this Court's
able law clerk Jonathan Baker has obtained from Menard the information as to Morris' trust fund
account deposits for the rest of the relevant six-month period.
Before this Opinion turns to the calculation called for by Section 1915, this Court states
on the merits that it sees no reason to reconsider its original dismissal of the Petition or its denial
of a certificate of appealability under Section 2254 Rule 11(a). Accordingly it respectfully
recommends the denial of both Morris' Petition and his IFP application before the Court of
But because the ultimate ruling on both those matters is necessarily to be made by the
Court of Appeals, this Court has made the calculation prescribed by Section 1915. In that
respect the average monthly deposits to Morris' trust fund account during the six-month period
immediately preceding the August 2017 filing of his notice of appeal (Section 1915(b)(1)) came
to $6.23, 20% if which (id.) is $1.25. 3 Accordingly Morris' obligation under Section 1915,
unless our Court of Appeals determines otherwise, is to pay the entire $505 in appellate filing
What the Menard records reflect is that the only deposits to Morris' trust fund account
during that period were monthly amounts covering his prison payroll -- payments ranging from
$2.72 to $9.86.
fees on a monthly installment basis, with the first required installment being $1.25 and the later
payments being made monthly as prescribed in Section 1915(b)(2).
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 22, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?