Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BAKER v. U.S.

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


May 9, 2005.

EVERETT O. BAKER, Petitioner,
v.
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 summarily denied.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.