OBJECTION by Eddie Lee Fryer to
court's recharacterization of his original
motion (Attachment)

FILED

untisy STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FEB 05 2008
219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 MIGHAEL W. DOBBING

GLERIG U.S, DISTRICT COURT

CLERK OF COURT ce
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET FEB 05 2003.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
IN RE: 03C-0295
DEAR CLERK:

COMES NOW, petitioner, pro-se, Eddie Lee Fryer, #01029-424, to acknowledge re-
ceipt of the correspondence from this Clerk of Court. The letter was dated January
14, 2003, whereas; "it informed the petitioner that the motion has been entered on
court docket as a motion other than the titled motion filed by petitioner.

Petitioner now comes to place on record his "timely objection" to the re-charac—
terization of the original motion from under Title 28 U.S.C. 2241 to Title 28 U.S.C.
§2255, if in any way this court is only seeking to apply the latches without adjudi-
cating the case on the merits.

Petitioner's case within the motion under §2241 is supported by uncontroverted
evidence of constitutional deprivations due to overzealous and vindictive prosecution
by the government attorney and depeties as well. In a attempt to convict members of
the "EL Rukens", whereas petitioner for not knowing information and supplying it to
the government, was denied fundamental constitutional rights. See U.S. v- Boyd, 833
F. Supp. 1377 (N.D. T11. 1993), d.d. at 1281.

For the reasons stated within the above mentioned case, concerning the tradegy
for the “lead” prosecutor who, in seeking to attain the laudable goal of ridding so-
ciety of an organization of predatory career eriminals, was willing to abandon funda-

mental notions of due process of law and deviate from acceptable standards of prose-

cutorial conduct. The others who followed his lead or failed to ‘supervise him proper~

- (0

cas RO


analysis and the conclusion reached in the Opinion.

Cle ke DSdter

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 7, 2003



ly, of course, share in this disgrace. [The pertinent insert taken from the above ana-
lysis from the court of the N.D. Ill., No.: 89-CR-908].

Therefore, at minimum, even if this motion was to be docketed: as a motion under
§2255, for the time it took petitioner to uncover this evidence to support his claim
of denied due process, and prosecutorial misconduct, as well as ineffective assistance
of counsel, through the exercise of due diligence, petitioner would aver that he would
still fall in the arena of "newly discovered evidence", so as to not have this case
dismissed prior to adjudicating the merits of such important claims.

For the reasons stated herein, petitioner "objects" to the re-characterization,

put will accept it in the event the merits of this motion is properly adjudicated.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITT#D!

S/_Ce : Da———
EDDIE LEE R #01078 7424
USP, LEE

P.O. BOX 305
JONESVILLE, VA. 24263-0305
CC/CLK OF CT.
FILE
1/22/03

County of LEE
Commonwealth of Virginia

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 22nd_ day of
January » 2003 ,by Eddie Fryer (#01029-424): .

(isha YK ts

Notary Public

My Commission Expires December 31, 2006.

el 2 of 2



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

= Py
Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 295 DATE 2/7/2003
CASE USA vs. Eddie Lee Fryer
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
() oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(©) Oo Answer brief to motion due Reply to answer brief due.
4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on _ setfor at :
(5) ao Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on _ setfor at
(6) im) Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(7) oO Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Qa (Bench/Jury tria!] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP4I(a\(1) 1 FRCP41(a\(2).
qo) =x [Other docket entry] _ Enter Supplement to Memorandum Opinion and Order. This Court therefore
reconfirms both the analysis and the conclusion reached in the Opinion.
al) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order,]
No notices required, advised in open court, Document
; , Number
No notices required. .
Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. Fu

Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. Lenac

Copy to judge/magistrate judge
a7rn003

date mailed notice

courtroom
SN deputy’s
initials ot

fale/time rec n
central Clerk's Office rmailing deputy initia



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS PRISONER CORRESPONDENCE

CLERK 312-435-5794
January 14, 2003

Eddie Lee Fryer
#01029-424

P.O. Box 305
Jonesville, VA 24263

Dear Mr, Fryer: eel . -

We hereby inform you that your motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence by a person in
federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 has been transferred to this court.

Please be advised that this motion has been assigned to: JUDGE SHADUR

_ MAGISTRATE JUDGE MASON |
for consideration, and that these matters will proceed under case number:

3C 0295

Please indicate your assigned case number on all future documents submitted for docketing in this
case. Furthermore, you must keep the Court informed of your address throughout the pendency
of your motion. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of your motion for want of prosecution.

Sincerely,

Prisoner Correspondent



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

(90 CR 57-1)

)
)
)
)
Vv. ) No. 03 C 295
)
EDDIE LEE FRYER, )
)
)

Defendant .

SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court's January 23, 2003 memorandum opinion and order
(“Opinion”) in part reconfirmed that the document that Eddie Lee
Fryer (“Fryer”) had filed with the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia under the claimed rubric of
28 U.S.C. §2241* was really a Section 2255 motion (that same
conclusion had been reached by the District Judge in Virginia,
and that was the predicate for the transfer to this District,
where Fryer had been convicted and sentenced). Then the Opinion
went on to hold that Fryer's present effort was a “second or
successive motion” that the last paragraph of Section 2255 (which

incorporated by reference Section 2244(b)) required him to tender

to the Court of Appeals in the first instance, rather than to a 4,
“ey ep
District Court. o, v7
0, “4

On February 5, 2003 this District Court's Clerk's Office <p,

received a letter from Fryer in which he sought “to place on

2 All further references to Title 28's provisions will

simply take the form “Section--.”



record his ‘timely objection' to the re-characterization of the
original motion from under Title 28 U.S.C. 2241 to Title 28
U.S.C. §2255”--a response by Fryer to the January 14
communication (photocopy attached) that apprised Fryer of the
transfer from the Virginia District to this District Court and
that labeled his filing as a Section 2255 motion (just as the
transferor judge had). Because Fryer's letter submission had
been notarized back on January 22 {though it is difficult to
understand why it should then have taken fully two weeks to get
to our Clerk's Office), it is obvious that the letter crossed in
the mails with the Opinion, a copy of which this Court had of
course sent to him.

Fryer must be disabused of the notion that he can attach the
Section 2241 label to his filing and can thereby take an end run
around the already-referred-to “second or successive motion”
limitation imposed by Section 2255 (as well as around Section
2255's short statute of limitations). To that end this Court
calls his attention to our Court of Appeals' November 6, 2002
decision in Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832 (7 Cir. 2002). That
decision makes it crystal clear that Fryer cannot successfully
invoke Section 2241 on the grounds that he asserts or for the

relief that he seeks. This Court therefore reconfirms both the