ay
Order Form (01/2008)

ate

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge if Oth

noe Magistrate Judge JOHN W. DARRAH inan signed wage |e ( d of

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4554 DATE ( 8-2 (2
CASE Reginald BoClair (#B-39522) vs. Michael P. Atchison, et al.
TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The petitioner’s motion “for cause” [#8] is granted. The respondent is ordered to answer the petition or otherwise
plead within twenty-one days of the date of this order. The petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [#4]
is denied as premature. On the court’s own motion, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is dismissed as a
respondent.

ll (For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

es

STATEMENT

Reginald BoClair, an Illinois state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner challenges his 1992 conviction for first degree murder on the grounds that:
(1) his guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) counsel was ineffective; (3) he was subjected to

a “vindictive” prosecution; and (4) the State committed unremedied discovery violations.

By Minute Order of June 21, 2012, the court granted the petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis but ordered him to show cause why his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be dismissed as
untimely. In response, the petitioner asserts that he made a “printing mistake,” and seems to indicate that properly
filed state court proceedings have been pending since his original date of conviction. A review of Westlaw
confirms that the Illinois Supreme Court denied a petition for leave to appeal on November 30, 2011, within one
year of initiation of the federal habeas corpus action. See People v. BoClair, 356 Ill. Dec. 798 (2011).
Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion “for cause” is granted.

The respondent is ordered to answer the petition or otherwise plead within twenty-one days of the date
this order is entered on the clerk’s docket. This preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the
State from making whatever waiver, exhaustion or timeliness arguments it may wish to present.

The petitioner is instructed to file all future papers concerning this action with the Clerk of Court in care
of the Prisoner Correspondent. The petitioner is once again reminded that he must provide the court with

(CONTINUED) jynod Lawisia SA

cut ky U1 Sf 21

mjm

Page | of 2



STATEMENT (continued)

the original plus a judge’s copy (including a complete copy of any exhibits) of every document filed. In
addition, the petitioner must send an exact copy of any court filing to the Chief, Criminal Appeals Division,
Attorney General’s Office, 100 West Randolph Street, 12" Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60601. Every document filed
by the petitioner must include a certificate of service stating to whom exact copies were sent and the date of
mailing. Any paper that is sent directly to the judge or that otherwise fails to comply with these instructions may
be disregarded by the court or returned to the petitioner.

The petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied at this time as premature. Counsel must be
appointed in a habeas corpus proceeding only ifan evidentiary hearing is needed or if interests of justice so require.
See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Whether the interests of justice require appointment of
counsel in this case cannot be determined until after the court has had an opportunity to review and consider the

respondent’s answer to the petition.

Finally, on the court’s own motion, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is dismissed as a respondent.
See Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 189, 190 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171 (1997) (astate’s attorney general
is a proper party in a habeas petition only if the petitioner is not then confined); see also Rules 2(a) and (b) of Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. In this case, the petitioner is not challenging a future sentence, but rather his
present confinement. Therefore, Illinois’ Attorney General is not a proper respondent.

Page 2 of 2