Appeals, this Court will of course abide whatever outcome stems

from that effort.

Te blo O Garotese-

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 16, 2003



1 Orlog Horn (ONT)

United States District Court, Northern District of Lllinois

Name of Assigned Judge Milton 1. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 3409 DATE 6/16/2003
CASE USA ex rel. Homer Hanrahan vs. Donald Snyder
TITLE
Tl the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd purty plaintiY, and (b) stute briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion hein presented.

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) a) Filed motion of [ usc listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Bricf in support of motion due

(3) o Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer bricfdue_

(4) a Ruling/Hearing onset Jor at

(5) im Status heuring[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on __ set tor al

(6) Oo Pretrial conference|held/continucd to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at.

(7) Oo Trial[sct for/re-set for]on at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/eontinued to at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCPa&(m) CLocal Rule 41.4 OO FRCP4i (a1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

cao) sil [Other docket entry] Enter Second Supplement to Memorandum Opinion and Order. Hanrahan’s
motion to reconsider memorandum opinion and order is denied. (11-1)

dl) [For further detail sce order attached to the original minute order.]

Document
Nimber

Nu notices required, advised in open court

No notives required. .

umber of netices

oY | Notices mailed by juige's stati

Notitied counsel by telephone.

Doeketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Lyunag 19}

SISTA “os
Copy to judge/magistrate jndge os o's'n
sevegans

date mailed gotice

SEI Wd 91 unr gy

€
initia : OL SN
Ca hidtidfgheeived in

central Clerk's Office

courtroom:

SN

mailing deputy it



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

DOCKETED

JUN 47 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
HOMER HANRAHAN,

)
)
)
Petitioner, )

ve No. 03 C 3409

DONALD SNYDER,
Respondent. 5
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This Court's May 23, 2003 memorandum opinion and order, as
supplemented on May 29, concluded by dismissing the 28 U.S.C.
§2254' Petition filed by Homer Hanrahan (“Hanrahan”). Now
Hanrahan has filed a Motion To Reconsider this Court’s rulings,
coupled with some exhibits that explain both (1) how he came to
file his Section 2254 Petition and (2) the circumstances
attendant on its being transferred from the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois to this
District Court.

Exhibit 1 to the current submission reproduces the February
14, 2003 order by which District Judge Harold Baker dismissed a
42 U.S.C. §1983 action that Hanrahan and other plaintiffs had
originally filed seeking the same relief. Judge Baker held that
because the relief sought would affect the duration of Hanrahan's

imprisonment, 42 U.S.C. §1983 was an inappropriate vehicle for

+ Further citations to Title 28 provisions will take the
form “Section --.”

lo



that purpose. Although Judge Baker then went on to characterize
Section 2254 as the potential source for such relief and directed
the Clerk of Court to mail appropriate forms for filing under
that statute to Hanrahan and his co-plaintiffs, Judge Baker's
dismissal order did not express any view as to the actual
availability of relief under Section 2254.

What Hanrahan now states in his motion for reconsideration
is that his claimed deprivation of good time is an ongoing
Matter, so that the advancement of his claim a full quarter
century after he began to suffer such asserted deprivation
renders the current action timely. But his prayer seeks relief.
for the entire period that began February 1, 1978, and even were
that not so the fact remains that he first suffered harm from the
claimed wrong back then -- so any claim on that acore ripened
years ago, with only the asserted damages from the claimed wrong
continuing to accrue thereafter. This Court continues to view
such a claim as barred by Section 2244(d) (1), even if Section
2244 (b) (3) (A) were held not to apply on the premise that this is
not a “second or successive habeas corpus application.”

Accordingly the Motion To Reconsider is denied. Because

Hanrahan has stated his intention to seek leave from the Court of