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.

United States ex rel O'Farrell v. Mathy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


June 18, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. THOMAS O'FARRELL #K54340, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH MATHY, ASSISTANT WARDEN,*FN1 PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL CENTER, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

When this Court first received the self-prepared 28 U.S.C. §2254*fn2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") from Thomas O'Farrell ("O'Farrell"), its natural concern as to the Petition's possible untimeliness was heightened (1) by the fact that O'Farrell's state court conviction had occurred more than a decade in the past (on January 21, 1997) and (2) by the need to analyze the timing questions posed by the complex set of O'Farrell's post-conviction efforts in the state court system. This Court therefore ordered the Illinois Attorney General's Office "to file a response to the Petition on or before May 20, 2008 that (1) states whether respondent intends to rely on, or alternatively is prepared to waive, the limitation period prescribed by Section 2244(d)(1) and (2) sets out the particulars as to whether and why the Petition is or is not timely in light of the Section 2244(d)(2)." After one request for an extension of time, that response is now in hand, captioned Limited Response to Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Response"), and it provides chapter and verse that establish beyond dispute that the Petition is indeed barred by Section 2244(d)(1), even after giving full credit for any tolling prescribed by Section 2244(d)(2).

Because that excellent presentation by Assistant Attorney General Michael Blankenheim covers the ground so thoroughly and accurately, this Court has studied it carefully and has concluded that it would be an act of supererogation simply to parrot what the 25-page Response has explained in such detail. Instead this Court adopts the Response as its own and, pursuant to Section 2254 Rule 4, dismisses both the Petition and this action.


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.