Hines v. United States of America

Filing 21

ORDER directing the United States to respond to Hines' petition and motion to diqualify; denying as moot Hines' motion requesting disposition of his petition (Doc. 2). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/8/12. (caa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
COREY LOUIS HINES,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-cv-1064-MJR

ORDER DIRECTING GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND
TO SECTION 2255 PETITION
REAGAN, District Judge:
In M a r c h

2008,

Corey

Hines

was indicted on charges of

possession of a prohibited object by an inmate and possession of a controlled
substance with the intent to distribute (Criminal Case No. 08-30040-MJR).

In

October 2009, after a two-day trial, the jury found Hines guilty on both counts.
After a delay occasioned by Hines’ filing several appeals, he was sentenced by the
undersigned Judge, with judgment entered April 12, 2010.
On December 5, 2011, H in e s filed a pro se motion to vacate, set
aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. 1 Section 2255 allows a
prisoner in custody via sentence imposed by a federal court to collaterally attack his
sentence on the ground that it was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws
of the United States, that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
that the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law.

A one-year statute

of limitation applies to § 2255 petitions. The one-year running from the latest of
four dates:
1

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction became final, (2)

Review of Hines’ petition was delayed by his filing a Notice of Appeal on March 15, 2012. The
Mandate of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
was filed on July 30, 2012.
1|Page

the date on which the impediment to filing a petition was removed, if the
impediment was caused by “governmental action,” (3) the date on which the
Supreme Court newly recognized a right and made it retroactively applicable to
cases on collateral review; or (4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim
presented by the petition could have been discovered through the exercise of due
diligence.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts directs the Judge who receives the motion to
promptly examine it; if it plainly appears from the motion, any exhibits, and the
record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge
must dismiss the motion.

Otherwise, the District Court must order the United

States Attorney to file an answer or response within a fixed time.

Rule 8 of the

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings explains that if the motion is not
dismissed, then depending on the issues raised and briefs filed, the Judge must
determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. If the Judge determines
that an evidentiary hearing is needed, he must appoint counsel to represent at the
evidentiary hearing any petitioner who qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 3006A .
In the case at bar, Petitioner Hines alleges defective procedures in
instituting the prosecution of his case, violation of the Speedy Trial Act, abuse of
discretion by the Court, and ineffective assistance of counsel throughout the
proceedings. On August 7, 2012, Hines supplemented his petition to assert a claim
of errors in connection with his sentencing.
The Court hereby DIRECTS the United States to respond to Hines’
§ 2255 petition by September 18, 2012. The United States shall address, inter
alia, whether H i n e s ’ petition is timely-filed.

Hines may file a reply brief (no

2|Page

longer than 5 pages) by October 8, 2012. If a review of the briefs indicates that
an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the Court immediately will set the hearing by
separate notice and, if Hines qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 3006A, appoint counsel to
represent him at the hearing.
Before considering Hines’ petition, however, the Court must take up his
motion for the disqualification/recusal of the undersigned Judge (Doc. 16).
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the United States to respond to Hines’ motion by
August 28, 2012.

Hines may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) by

September 11, 2012.
Lastly, having concluded its preliminary review, the Court DENIES as
moot Hines’ motion requesting disposition of his petition (Doc. 2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED August 8, 2012

s/Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

3|Page