Nitz v. Hulick
ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report by August 5, 2022 detailing their respective positions on the status of the stay in this matter. (Status Report due by 8/5/2022). Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 8/1/2022. (arm)
Case 3:07-cv-00520-DWD Document 91 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #254
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD C. NITZ,
Case No. 07-cv-520-DWD
DUGAN, District Judge:
On July 20, 2007, Petitioner Richard C. Nitz, through counsel, filed his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the
conditions of his confinement (Doc. 2).
Petitioner argues that he was denied the
opportunity to an impartial jury during the retrial of his Illinois state charge for first
degree murder. Petitioner filed an amended petition on December 12, 2007 (Doc. 21),
adding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On January 9, 2008, this case was
stayed to allow Petitioner to exhaust his state court remedies (Doc. 23). On April 25, 2008,
the Court denied Respondent’s motion to reconsider the imposition of the stay and
directed Petitioner to file a motion to lift the stay in this matter within 30-days of the
conclusion of his state court proceedings (Doc. 33). Thereafter, the parties were directed
to file status reports concerning Petitioner’s state court proceedings.
This case was reassigned to the undersigned in October 2020 (Doc. 75). At that
time, Petitioner was in the process of appealing the state court’s denial of his
Case 3:07-cv-00520-DWD Document 91 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #255
postconviction petition following a limited order of remand (Doc. 77). On January 4,
2022, the Illinois appellate court denied Petitioner’s petition for rehearing (Doc. 85) and
Petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court (Doc. 87).
On March 16, 2022, the Court directed the parties to file a status report concerning
the stay of proceedings “within 7-days of the disposition of Petitioner’s petition for leave
to appeal, or by June 15, 2022, whichever is earlier.” (Doc. 90). The parties did not file a
status report by the June 15, 2022 deadline. Moreover, a review of the Illinois Supreme
Court’s leave to appeal docket indicates that Petitioner’s petition for leave to appeal was
denied on March 31, 2022. 1 In its entirety, the disposition provides:
THE FOLLOWING CASES ON THE LEAVE TO APPEAL DOCKET
WERE DISPOSED OF AS INDICIATED:
128058 - People State of Illinois, respondent, v. Richard C. Nitz,
petitioner. Leave to appeal, Appellate Court, Fifth District.
Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied.
Despite the denial of Petitioner’s petition for leave to appeal, neither party has filed a
status report with the Court.
Moreover, at this time, it appears that the stay of
proceedings is due to be lifted. However, Petitioner has not filed a motion to lift the stay
of these proceedings.
The Court observes that Petitioner still appears to be represented by Counsel in
this matter. On July 17, 2007, Attorney Aviva Futorian entered her appearance for
Illinois Supreme Court Order dated March 30, 2022, disposing of cases on the leave to appeal docket,
available at https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/d733341a-023f4377-b84d-d755a23a39cc/033022.pdf (last visited Aug. 1, 2022).
Case 3:07-cv-00520-DWD Document 91 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #256
Petitioner (Doc. 4). No motion for leave to withdraw has been filed, and electronic notices
continue to be sent to Attorney Futorian. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the parties
to file a joint status report by August 5, 2022 detailing their respective positions on the
status of the stay in this matter.
Dated: August 1, 2022
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
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?