IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

JIMMY BOOKER #N-52835, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 174

)

WARDEN L. JACKSON, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Jimmy Booker (“Booker”) has just presented a Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”), using the printed form

provided by this District Court’s Clerk’s Office and filling in

the requested information by hand. Under the threshold review

called for by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases 1

in the United States District Courts (“Section 2254 Rules”), it

is clear that the Petition must be dismissed for more than one

reason.

But before this opinion turns to that subject, the question

of the modest $5 filing fee--unpaid by Booker--should be dealt

with. Booker is ordered to pay that fee promptly. And although

he has not provided any information as to his trust fund account

at Illinois River Correctional Center, where he is serving his

20-year sentence for second degree murder, a copy of this opinion

is being sent to that institution with directions to send payment

 All further references to provisions of Title 28 will 1

also take the form “Section --.”
of the fee (with an identification of this Case No. 12 C 174 to

accompany the transmittal) to:

Clerk, United States District Court

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago IL 60604

Attention: Financial Department

To turn to the Petition, Booker has made plain his total

misunderstanding of the role that federal courts play--or more

accurately do not play--in connection with claims that a state

court conviction has violated the defendant’s rights. Thus in

response to the Petition Pt. III ¶2 question “Have all grounds in

this Petition been presented to the highest court having

jurisdiction?,” Booker has answered “No,” followed by this

explanation of that negative answer:

This is first time taking all grounds, stated above, to

highest court having jurisdiction.

That view of this federal court as some kind of appellate

tribunal to review Booker’s state court conviction is, of course,

dead wrong. And that misperception is further confirmed by

Booker’s acknowledgment at Petition Pt. I ¶4 that he never took

an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court from the Illinois

Appellate Court’s July 24, 2009 affirmance of his conviction--a

failure that violates the United States Supreme Court’s command

that any federal habeas corpus effort must be preceded by one

full round of presentation to the state court judicial system

(O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).

2
And that is not all. As the preceding paragraph’s reference

to the date of the final determination by the Illinois Appellate

Court confirms (Petition Pt. II ¶1 states that Booker also never

filed any post-conviction petition in the state court system),

the filing of the current Petition comes well after the

expiration of the one-year limitation period prescribed by

Section 2244(d)(1). That delay is an independent added ground

for rejection of the Petition.

In the language of Section 2254 Rule 4, “it plainly appears

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner

is not entitled to relief in the district court.” That being so,

the same Rule 4 dictates that the Petition must be dismissed, and

this Court so orders.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 13, 2012

3