Sorenson v. Dennison

Filing 11

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss and adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. The Court DISMISSES with prejudice petitioner's habeas corpus petition, declines to issue a certificate of appealability and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/27/2018. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ERIC SORENSON,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY DENNISON,
Respondent.

18-cv-0252-DRH

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
on a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) submitted by Magistrate Judge
Proud on August 7, 2018 (Doc. 10). The Report recommends that the Court grant
defendants’ motion to dismiss Sorenson’s habeas petition as time barred (Doc. 8).
The Report notes that Sorensen has not responded to the motion despite being
warned of the consequences of failing to respond to the motion (Doc. 9).
Specifically, the Report found:
The instant habeas petition was clearly untimely under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A), and must be dismissed unless Petitioner is entitled to
equitable tolling. The petition does not present any argument to
Page 1 of 3

address this issue, and as noted above, Petitioner has not filed a
response to counter the arguments in the Motion to Dismiss. The only
reference to as possible explanation for the tardiness of the habeas
actions is Petitioner’s statement to the Illinois Supreme Court that he
was “misadvised” (by whom, he does not say) of the time limitations to
seek review in the state’s highest court. (Doc. 8-2, p.1.)
…
Here, Petitioner has not come forward with any new evidence at all.
Instead, he argues that he should have been able to cross-examine state
witness Dorsey more fully, in order to demonstrate to the jury that she
had motive to testify falsely as to his involvement in the robbery.
Petitioner raised this argument on direct appeal. The Illinois Appellate
Court found that it was error for the trial court to prevent Petitioner from
cross-examining Dorsey on whether she had been led to believe she
might lose her children if she did not testify. However, the error was
harmless in light of the “overwhelming” evidence of Petitioner’s guilt.
People v. Sorenson, 2016 IL App (2d) 140654-U, ¶¶ 1, 16 (Doc. 1-1, pp.
2, 10). This falls short of meeting the demanding Schlup standard.
(Doc. 10, ps. 5-6).
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right
to appeal by way of filing “objections” within 14 days of service of the Report. To
date, none of the parties has filed objections.

The period in which to file

objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court
need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 10). The
Court GRANTS defendants motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) and DISMISSES with
prejudice Sorensen’s habeas corpus petition. Further, the Court DECLINES to
issue a certificate of appealability in this matter based on the reasoning contained
in the Report.

Lastly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter
Page 2 of 3

judgment reflecting the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.08.27 11:33:05
-05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3