United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
May 9, 2005.
EVERETT O. BAKER, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM STIEHL, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are several pending motions. On March 29,
2005, the Court denied petitioner's motion for leave to amend his
habeas petition finding that the additional claims that the
petitioner sought to include in the amended petition were not
subject to collateral review and denied the motion for leave to
amend. See Memorandum & Order (Doc. 22).
In response to the Court's Order, the petitioner filed, pro se,
a motion for leave to proceed without counsel (Doc. 23), a motion
to alter or amend the Court's Order of March 29th (Doc. 24)
(which is more in the nature of a motion for reconsideration),
and a notice that he had dismissed his counsel (Doc. 26). The
petitioner contests the Court's determination that his new claims
are not subject to collateral review, and the fact that his
habeas counsel did not make that argument to the Court, and did
not seek reconsideration of that order. In addition, petitioner
has filed pro se a motion to stay the proceedings (Doc. 28)
pending the Court's ruling on his motion to alter or amend, and
sought an additional thirty (30) days from the date of the
Court's ruling on the motion to alter or amend in which to file
his reply. On the same date that the motion to alter was filed,
petitioner's counsel filed a motion for an extension of time to
file a reply to the government's response (Doc. 27). Upon review of the record, the Court GRANTS petitioner leave
to proceed without counsel.*fn1 (Docs. 23, 26). The Court
DENIES petitioner's motion to amend. (Doc. 24). The Court
remains persuaded that the claims that petitioner sought to add
to his habeas petition are not subject to collateral review.
Petitioner's motion to stay is DENIED as moot (Doc. 28), but
the request therein that the petitioner be given additional time
to file his reply is GRANTED, which moots the motion for an
extension of time filed by petitioner's counsel, and said motion
is DENIED. (Doc 27).
Accordingly, petitioner, if he chooses to proceed pro se, or
his counsel, shall have an additional thirty (30) days from the
date of this Order to file a reply brief to the government's
response. Petitioner is DIRECTED to limit his reply, as
directed in the Court's Memorandum and Order of March 29, 2005,
to grounds 3, 5 and 6 raised in the original petition. If
petitioner attempts to assert any new grounds, or re-assert any
grounds previously dismissed by the Court, those claims shall be
IT IS SO ORDERED.