Stokes v. Butler
ORDER DENYING 14 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Marcell Stokes, and DENYING 13 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Marcell Stokes. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 10/14/2016. (dsw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Civil No. 15-cv-967-DRH-CJP
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
In 2004, a jury in Cook County, Illinois, convicted Marcell Stokes of first
degree murder and attempted armed robbery.
He was sentenced to 35 years
imprisonment. Stokes filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2254, Doc. 1.
Now before the Court are petitioner’s Motions to Amend, Docs. 13 & 14.
The petition asserts the following grounds for habeas relief:
The trial judge did not focus on the correct factors in the Batson
hearing after remand from the Illinois Appellate Court.
“Whether or not there was reasonable evidence presented to allow the
jury to consider U.S. Supreme CT. Rule 31(c), evidence of a lesser
Post-conviction appellate counsel was ineffective in raising a
challenge to the Illinois Truth-in-Sentencing Law instead of the issues
Stokes raised in his pro se postconviction petition.
Petitioner seeks leave to amend his third ground by expanding on his
argument that his postconviction appellate counsel was ineffective.
objects to the proposed amendment because the claim of ineffective assistance of
postconviction counsel is not cognizable here. See, Doc. 15.
28 U.S.C. §2242 provides that a habeas petition “may be amended or
supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions.”
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), at this stage, petitioner may amend only with the
opposing party’s consent or by leave of court; the court is to “freely give leave
when justice so requires.” However, leave to amend may be denied where the
proposed amendment would be futile. Gandhi v. Sitara Capital Management, 721
F.3d 865, 868-869 (7th Cir. 2013).
The Court agrees that the proposed amendment would be futile because a
claim of ineffective assistance by postconviction counsel cannot be the basis for
Petitioner’s state postconviction petition was a collateral proceeding. There
is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in collateral
proceedings. See, Pennsylvania v. Finley, 107 S. Ct. 1990, 1993 (1987).
U.S.C. §2254(i) provides that “The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel
during Federal or State collateral proceedings shall not be a ground for relief in a
proceeding arising under section 2254.” Therefore, amendment of the third
ground would be futile because the third ground cannot be the basis for habeas
Petitioner’s Motions to Amend (Docs. 13 & 14) are DENIED.
Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 14, 2016
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?