United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
July 20, 2004.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
ANDREW TRAEGER, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
After the issuance of this Court's July 8, 2004 memorandum
opinion and order denying the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that had
been filed pro se by Andrew Traeger ("Traeger"), this Court
received another pro se communication from Traeger that he has
labeled as his Reply to the Government's Response to his motion.
Traeger has concluded that most recent filing with a request for
an evidentiary hearing and the appointment of counsel.
As the July 8 opinion reflected, the government's response to
Traeger's motion demonstrated why no evidentiary hearing was
required. And that being so, Rule 8(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Court
allowed the summary dismissal ordered by this Court. Traeger's
current filing does not call for a different result.
It is true that Dr. Thomas Hare, whose affidavit this Court
credited for purposes of its ruling, provided personal care to
Traeger only during the more recent portions of his stay at the Springfield, Missouri Medical Center. But as to the earlier
portion of Traeger's confinement that had not been observed
personally by Dr. Hare, the uncontroverted medical records from
the institution also negated Traeger's claimed incompetence that
assertedly precluded his timely preparation of a Section 2255
motion. In sum, nothing in Traeger's current filing calls for the
rethinking of this Court's July ruling.
Accordingly the July 8 memorandum opinion and order stands.
Traeger's most recent motion, which effectively seeks a
reconsideration of that opinion, is denied in its entirety.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.