IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

TREMAYNE CORA #B79855, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 9230

)

MARCUS HARDY, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

As soon as this Court received the self-prepared Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed by Tremayne Cora

(“Cora”), it conducted a preliminary review of that presentation

in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts (“Section 2254

Rules”). That review revealed that a threshold look at the

Petition’s timeliness was obviously called for--as this Court’s

January 5, 2012 memorandum order pointed out, Cora’s December 2,

2002 post-conviction petition in the state court was said to have

taken fully 6-1/2 years (until May 21, 2009) to have reached the

dismissal stage. After making a number of unsuccessful efforts

to reach Cora’s post-conviction attorney Lee Boyd, Jr. (“Boyd”)

to obtain some informed input in that respect, this Court 1

perforce had to look instead to the Attorney General’s office for

 It has since been learned that attorney Boyd had died 1

recently, explaining the failures of his office to respond to

voicemail messages.

Case: 1:11-cv-09230 Document #: 20 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:134
such enlightenment.

Assistant Attorney General David Iskowich has just submitted

a thorough memorandum, replete with appropriate attachments, that

explains the timeliness of the Petition under 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(1) and (2). That makes it necessary to address the

substantive sufficiency of the Petition, as to which this Court

turns to the Attorney General’s office for an answer, to be filed

on or before April 16, 2012.2

One matter remains for discussion: Cora’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”), which was tendered with the

Petition. Although Cora has presented an adequate showing of his

financial inability to retain counsel, his submission is lacking

an essential ingredient required by our Court of Appeals--a

statement as to his efforts to obtain counsel on his own. As and

when that is provided, this Court will be in a position to

consider the Motion. Cora has suffered no harm by reason of any

delay in that respect, for Section 2254 Rule 5(e) specifies that

any reply that may be needed from Cora necessarily follows the

 It is hoped that this opinion is not viewed by attorney 2

Iskowich as qualifying for a “no good deed goes unpunished”

characterization--the Attorney General’s office is obviously in

the best position to provide that analysis in the first instance. 

As for the timing of the required answer, it is shorter than this

Court ordinarily allows, but it is hoped that the head start in

reviewing the matter as reflected in the current memorandum will

make it feasible to meet the shorter timetable. If such is not

the case, this Court would of course be prepared to consider a

motion for extension.

2

Case: 1:11-cv-09230 Document #: 20 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:135
respondent’s answer called for earlier in this memorandum order.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 12, 2012

3

Case: 1:11-cv-09230 Document #: 20 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:136