United States of America v. Phillips
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Michael J. Reagan on 9/25/2017. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 22 is hereby denied.Mailed notice(rao, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHERRON MARIE PHILLIPS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 17-cv-1338-MJR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
REAGAN, Chief Judge:
This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner Cherron Phillips’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 22), wherein she demands summary judgment as to claims
she feels are unresolved in this Court’s earlier Order denying her Petition for habeas
corpus (Doc. 18). The errors set forth in this Motion are duplicative of the errors
Petitioner Phillips raised in a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 20) filed
approximately a week before the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court fully
addressed those issues and denied relief in an Order (Doc. 21) that was docketed earlier
in the day, but the same day the Court received this Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court finds nothing in the Motion for Summary Judgment that casts doubt upon its
earlier Orders (Docs. 18, 21), so the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Two additional points are worth mention. First, because this habeas petition has
already been addressed on the merits, and because the petition has already been denied
1|Page
(Doc. 18), Petitioner’s request for Summary Judgment is untimely. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56(b) provides that a motion for summary judgment may be filed at any time
until 30 days after the close of discovery, unless a different time is set by the local rules.
Once a judgment has been entered in a case, summary judgment is no longer an
appropriate motion as other rules provide for post-judgment relief. Second, though the
Court will not sanction Petitioner based on this Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
22) because it was filed before she received the Court’s Order dissuading her from
further vexatious and repetitive filings—any further filings will be grounds for
sanctions. See Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312, 315-16 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying
monetary sanctions for duplicative filings in a habeas case).
Based on the foregoing analysis, Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2017
s/ Michael J. Reagan
Michael J. Reagan
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2|Page
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?