IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
November 16, 2006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MICHAEL FRANKLIN #N-52396, PETITIONER,
WARDEN SIMS - TAYLORVILLE C.C., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Michael Franklin ("Franklin") has contemporaneously filed both a "Motion for Re-Consideration of Order Dismissing Habeas Corpus Petition" ("Motion") and a Notice of Appeal ("Notice") of that dismissal. Although he refers to the Motion as a filing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 60(b), his prompt filing causes the Motion to be treated as having been filed under Rule 59(e) instead. And because that renders the Notice premature, this Court hastens to address the Motion.
Nothing that Franklin has set forth in the Motion alters the analysis set out in this Court's October 31 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion") dismissing Franklin's Petition. Indeed, the careful consideration that was given by the Illinois Appellate Court majority to the Batson issue raised by Franklin*fn1 should be contrasted with the Wisconsin courts' handling of a Batson challenge that--by sheer coincidence--our Court of Appeals has addressed just a week ago in Lamon v. Boatwright, No. 05-4018, 2006 WL 3209916 (7th Cir. Nov. 8). Lamon upheld the rejection of a Batson challenge in a habeas case under circumstances that really call for the same result here a fortiori.
Accordingly Franklin's Motion is denied. That leaves him free to pursue his appeal from this Court's dismissal, although it should be emphasized that no view is expressed here as to the procedural requirements that Franklin must satisfy in that respect.