Adkinson v. Burke

Filing 11

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/2/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TASHEBA M. ADKINSON,
No. R-90394,
Petitioner,

No. 3:16-cv-01299-DRH

v.
MAGGIE BURKE
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Introduction
Petitioner Tasheba M. Adkinson, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections and currently housed at Logan Correctional Center,
brings this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner is challenging an Illinois state court conviction. The Petition was filed
on December 2, 2016.
This matter is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the § 2254
Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts.

Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the

district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”

After

carefully reviewing the Petition in the present case, the Court concludes that the §
2254 petition warrants further review.
Background
In August 2013, the State of Illinois charged Petitioner with one count of
unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (720 ILCS 5/24–1.1(a) (West 2012))
(Champaign County Case No. 2013-cf-001379), alleging she, having been
convicted of a felony in Texas, knowingly possessed a firearm.

People v.

Adkinson, 2015 IL App (4th) 131110-U. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Id. In
November 2013, a jury found Petitioner guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon
by a felon. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Petitioner was sentenced to eight years in prison on
December 18, 2013. Id.
Petitioner pursued a direct appeal of her conviction. People v. Adkinson,
2015 IL App (4th) 131110-U. On July 9, 2015, the Illinois Appellate Court issued
an order affirming in part and vacating in part. Id. Petitioner alleges that she
sought leave from the Illinois Supreme Court on direct appeal (reportedly
dismissed on September 29, 2015)(the case number Petitioner provides with
respect to her appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court is 4-13-11104, which is
closely related to the case number for Petitioner’s appeal with the Illinois
Appellate Court (4-13-1110)) and filed a petition for certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court (Petitioner lists a “result” date of January 21, 2016) (the case
number Petitioner provides with respect to her petition for certiorari is 2013-cf001379, the Champaign County case number for her underlying conviction).

(Doc. 1, p. 3). Plaintiff also indicates that she has filed a number of motions
seeking post-conviction relief with the circuit court and that these motions have
been denied as frivolous and incoherent. (Doc. 1, pp. 5-6).
Analysis
The present petition appears to be Petitioner’s first attempt to seek relief
via federal habeas corpus mechanisms. 1

Petitioner raises arguments under §

2254(d)(1) and (2), alleging that: (1) the State failed to prove her guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt; (2) the circuit clerk improperly imposed certain fines against
her; (3) she had ineffective counsel; and (4) her conviction is contrary to federal
law. Further review of the petition is necessary. For this reason, Respondent will
be ordered to answer the Petition or otherwise file a responsive pleading.
This Order should not be construed as a decision regarding the merits of
any of the counts asserted in the Petition. In addition, the Order does not
preclude the State from making whatever argument it wishes to present, be it
waiver, exhaustion, forfeiture, timeliness, etc. Petitioner alleges that she pursued
many avenues of post-conviction relief.

However, her case chronology is not

entirely clear and leaves the Court with some questions regarding exhaustion as to
each claim asserted and timeliness.

1

Petitioner filed pleadings in the Central District of Illinois that were docketed as a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Adkinson v. Burke, 2:16-cv-02324-CSB (Doc. 1)
(October 144, 2016). The pleadings were related to Petitioner’s underlying criminal conviction
and were intended for use in Illinois state court. The district court concluded the pleadings had
been mistakenly filed and directed the Clerk to close the case.

Pending Motions
Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3) and Motion to Suppress
Evidence (Doc. 8) shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge
CLIFFORD J. PROUD for a decision.
To the extent that Service of Process is now ordered on the Illinois Attorney
General, the Motion for Service of Process (Doc. 4) is hereby GRANTED.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 shall proceed past preliminary screening.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall answer the Petition
within thirty days of the date this Order is entered. This Order to respond does
not preclude the State from making whatever waiver, exhaustion, or timeliness
arguments it may wish to present. Service upon the Illinois Attorney General,
Criminal Appeals Bureau, 100 West Randolph, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois shall
constitute sufficient service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this
cause is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for further pre-trial
proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 3)
and Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 8) are REFERRED to Magistrate Judge
Clifford J. Proud for consideration.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to
Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule
72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all parties consent to such a referral.
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligations to keep the Clerk (and
Respondent) informed of any change in his whereabouts during this action. This
notification shall be done in writing and not later than seven days after a transfer
or other change in address occurs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 2nd day of May, 2017.

Judge Herndon
2017.05.02
04:49:58 -05'00'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE