first five grounds he presently cites for relief have been waived for appeal, as they were
not earlier raised before this court. See Schoenfeld v. Apfel, 237 F.3d 788, 793 (7th
Cir, 2001); Ehrhart v. Secretary of Health and Human Serv., 969 F.2d 534, 537, n.4
(7th Cir, 1992); U.S. v. Andreas, 150 F.3d 766, 769 (7th Cir. 1998).

The remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claim raises the identical three
issues that Johnson presented in his 2254 petition: (1) His trial counsel used subterfuge
in pressuring him into taking a jury trial; (2) his trial counsel failed to subpoena and
interview key witnesses; and (3) his trial counsel should have known that Johnson’s
testifying clinical psychologist’s license was expired. Our March 10, 2004,
Memorandum Opinion squarely dismissed these three claims as barred under the
doctrine of procedural default. As Johnson makes no argument why another court
would reach a different conclusion, we find that these reinstated claims are insufficient
to merit certification to the appellate court under the Rutledge standard.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Johnson’s application for a certificate of

appealability is denied.

cA Qs Pon

Charles P. Kocoras
Chief Judge
APR 1D 2004 United States District Court

Dated:


Minute Order Form (0697)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

vr Mapoate tug Charles P. Kocoras “than Asived ude
CASE NUMBER 03 C S110 DATE 4/19/2004
CASE Johnson vs. Sternes et al
TITLE
Lin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g... plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oOo Brief in support of motion due
(3) o Answer briefto motion due___. Reply toanswerbriefdue__.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on setfor at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on___—ssetfor___—_—at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor__—at__
Q) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on_____at
(8) oOo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto saat
(9) Qa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OC FRCP41(a\1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

qo if [Other docket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: Johnson’s application (Doc 25-1)
for a certificate of appealability is denied.

(1) @ (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notives required, advised in open court,

No notices required,

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

APR 2 0 2004

Notified counse! by telephone.

| Docketing to mail notices

Mail AO 450,form,

docketing deputy tials

date muited novice
courtroam,

deputy's

initials

Date/time received in ;
central Clerk's Office sing deputy initio,



”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIE JOHNSON, »)
)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs, ) 03 C 5110

)

JERRY L. STERNES and LISA MADIGAN, )
)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

This matter comes before the court on Willie Johnson’s (“Johnson”) application
for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). For the reasons set
forth below, the application is denied.

BACKGROUND

The factual background for this case can be found in our prior opinion of U.S.
ex rel, Johnson v. Sternes, 2004 WL 527117 (N.D. Ill. 2004). In that decision, we
denied Johnson’s petition, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for writ of habeas corpus.

Johnson now wishes to appeal certain issues from that decision, but appellate

proceedings cannot commence without a certificate of appealability either from this



court or from a circuit judge of the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.
App. Proc, 22(b).
DISCUSSION

A court may issue a certificate of appealability for a decision denying a 28
U.S.C, § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus “only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
In order to make this showing, the applicant must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists
could debate whether the challenges in his habeas petition should have been resolved
differently or that his petition adequately shows a sufficient chance of the denial of a
constitutional right that he deserves encouragement to proceed further.” Rutledge v.
U.S,, 230 F.3d 1041, 1047 (7th Cir. 2000).

Johnson seeks his certificate of appealability on the following six grounds:
(1) The appellate court erred in upholding the imposition of mandatory consecutive
sentences; (2) the trial court erred in the imposition of consecutive sentences; (3) the
THinois courts erred in upholding Johnson’s first degree murder and armed robbery
convictions; (4) the trial court erred in admitting Johnson’s mug-shot into evidence;
(5) the Nlinois courts improperly dismissed Johnson’s post conviction petition; and
(6) ineffective assistance of counsel. However, because Johnson’s habeas petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 contained only ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the

-2-