Minute Order Form (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Milton I. Shadur

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01 C 9530 DATE 12/14/2001
CASE USA ex rel. Richard W. Turner vs. Timothy Budz
TITLE

of the motion being presented,]

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(@)) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) im] Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue_____.

(4) im Ruling/Hearingon se setfor at.

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_____at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ ss at_

(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for]on__— saat

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at

(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (CGeneral Rule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP4I(a)(2).

ao) ff

[Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. More than five and one-half years have elapsed since

that April 1996 date. But Section 2244(d)(1) and (d)(2), with their much shorter timetable, have long since foreclosed any
current effort on Turner’s part to obtain Section 2254 relief. That being the case, “it plainly appears from the face of the
petition...that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” (Section 2254 Rule 4). This Court therefore dismisses

the Petition summarily (id.). Turner’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. (4-1)

(1)

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required,
“a number of notices

Y | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

DEC .17 2001

date docketed

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. QW

docketing deputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

1/4720

' date mailed notice
courtroom at

SN deputy’s
initials

SN

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office

‘mailing deputy initials



pocKeTeD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DEG 17 2004
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
RICHARD W. TURNER #N-27871,

)

)

)

Petitioner, )
v. No. 01 C 9530
TIMOTHY BUDZ,
Respondent .

MEMORANDUM ORDER.

Richard Turner (“Turner”) has just tendered a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus--Person in State Custody (“Petition”), using
the form provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office for the
institution of such 28 U.S.C. §2254* proceedings. Because the
Petition is so patently out of time, in direct violation of the
statutory provision that governs the permitted timetable for such
proceedings, this Court dismisses the Petition summarily pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (“Section 2254 Rules”).

Petition Part I 42 states that the conviction about which
Turner complains took place on April 28, 1992, and Petition Part I
43 accurately reports that the conviction was affirmed on direct
appeal on February 11, 1993 (an affirmance reported at 241
T11.App.3d 236, 608 N.E.2d 906 (4 Dist. 1993)). Although Petition

Part I §4 then goes on to refer to an “affirmance” of the

conviction by the Illinois Supreme Court at an unknown date, the

+ All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply

take the form “Section--.”


venenatis sr snaateenen emer

actual disposition at that level was the Supreme Court's June 3,
1993 denial of leave to appeal (reported in the table at 151 I1l.2d
575, 616 N.E.2d 345).
Petition Part II {1 describes Turner's post-conviction effort
in the state court system as having been denied on October 3, 1993,

with that denial having been affirmed on May 18, 1995. Thus the

time clock for the institution of any federal habeas actions such
as the present one began to tick on April 24, 1996 under the

teaching of Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F.3d 856, 865-66 (7TM Cir. 1996) {en

banc) (rev'd on other grounds, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)) interpreting
the subsequently enacted 1996 prison Litigation Reform Act.

More than five and one-half years have elapsed since that
April 1996 date. But Section 2244(d)(1) and (da) (2), with their
much shorter timetable, have long since foreclosed any current
effort on Turner's part to obtain Section 2254 relief.

That being the case, “it plainly appears from the face of the _
petition...that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court” (Section 2254 Rule 4). This Court therefore

dismisses the Petition summarily (id..).?

Co Mla. D&. atu

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: December 14, 2001

2 This disposition moots Turner's motion for appointment of

counsel, which he submitted together with the Petition.

2