IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
November 19, 2007
YRIAN RODGERS, PETITIONER,
BRAD ROBERTS, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott, U.S. District Judge
This cause is before the Court on Petitioner's: (1) Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (d/e 4) (§ 2254 Petition); (2) Motion for Appointment of Counsel (d/e 2); and (3) Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 3). The Court will consider the § 2254 Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
After a review of the § 2254 Petition, this Court finds that a summary dismissal is not warranted. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4, the Court directs the Attorney General for the State of Illinois to respond to the § 2254 Petition. The response shall discuss the merits and the procedural posture of the § 2254 Petition, i.e. whether Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies and/or procedurally defaulted any claims. See Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases.
The Motion for Appointment of Counsel is premature. The Court will decide whether to appoint counsel if the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases. The Motion for Summary Judgment is also not appropriate at this time. The Respondent must first respond in accordance with Rule 5 before the Court can address the substance of the Petition.
THEREFORE, the Attorney General for the State of Illinois is ordered to file on or before January 31, 2008, an answer, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases, to Petitioner's § 2254 Petition. Petitioner is given until February 28, 2008, to file any reply. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel (d/e 2) and Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 3) are DENIED at this time.
ENTER: November 19, 2007.
JEANNE E. SCOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.