Homelsey, Charles v. Dittman, Michael

Filing 20

ORDER that the parties may have until July 1, 2016, to confer and then inform the court whether respondent Michael Dittman will renew his motion to dismiss and, if so, what the appropriate briefing schedule should be. If the parties cannot agree on a proposed schedule, each party should submit his own proposal, along with his reasons for choosing that schedule. If the parties do not respond by July 1, 2016, I will direct respondent to file an answer to the petition and set a schedule for briefing the merits of the petition. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/16/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CHARLES J. HOMELSEY
a/k/a CHARLES J. MAYBERRY,
ORDER
Petitioner,
16-cv-47-bbc
v.
MICHAEL DITTMAN,
Warden, Columbia Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner Charles J. Homelsey is proceeding on claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that
his trial counsel and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise a
question as to petitioner's competence to stand trial. In an order dated June 14, 2016, dkt.
#19, I concluded that it would be in the interest of justice to seek counsel to represent
petitioner.
Reed Cornia has agreed to represent plaintiff, with the understanding that he will
serve with no guarantee of compensation for his services. For counsel’s information, I have
attached the procedures regarding the court’s pro bono fund, which allow limited
reimbursement for some litigation expenses.
It is this court's intention that the scope of representation extends to proceedings in
this court only. "Proceedings in this court" include all matters leading up to a final judgment
on the merits, the filing of a Notice of Appeal, if appropriate, and ensuring that all steps are

taken to transfer the record to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Additionally, the court intends the scope of representation to be limited to litigating
plaintiff’s current claims. It is unnecessary for counsel to file an amended petition or
otherwise relitigate matters already completed.
Plaintiff should understand that because he is now represented in this case, he may
not communicate directly with the court from this point forward. He must work directly
with counsel and permit counsel to exercise his professional judgment to determine which
matters are appropriate to bring to the court's attention and in what form. Plaintiff does not
have the right to require counsel to raise frivolous arguments or to follow every directive he
makes. He should be prepared to accept the strategic decisions made by counsel even if he
disagrees with some of them. If plaintiff decides at some point not to work with counsel, he
is free to end the representation, but he should be aware that it is unlikely that the court will
work to recruit another set lawyer to represent him.
In the order granting petitioner’s request for counsel, I denied respondent’s motion
to dismiss without prejudice to his refiling it after counsel was appointed. I will give the
parties an opportunity to confer and provide a proposed schedule for filing and briefing a
renewed motion, if respondent chooses to file one.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the parties may have until July 1, 2016, to confer and then
inform the court whether respondent Michael Dittman will renew his motion to dismiss and,
if so, what the appropriate briefing schedule should be. If the parties cannot agree on a

proposed schedule, each party should submit his own proposal, along with his reasons for
choosing that schedule.

If the parties do not respond by July 1, 2016, I will direct

respondent to file an answer to the petition and set a schedule for briefing the merits of the
petition.
Entered this 16th day of June, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge