Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States ex rel Pratt v. Robert

March 30, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. REGINALD PRATT, PETITIONER,
v.
BRADLEY ROBERT, WARDEN, CENTRALIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge David H. Coar

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Reginald Pratt ("Petitioner" or "Pratt") brings a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Presently before this Court are Pratt's petition and the State's motion to dismiss this petition as time-barred. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Pratt's habeas petition is untimely. Accordingly, the State's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Pratt's petition is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Cook County in October 1992, Pratt was convicted of first-degree murder and unlawful use of a weapon. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of forty-five and four years of imprisonment, respectively, and he is now in the custody of Bradley Robert, the warden of Centralia Correctional Center.

Pratt appealed his murder conviction, and his direct appeal proceedings concluded when the Illinois Supreme Court denied his petition for leave to appeal ("PLA") on January 31, 1996. Meanwhile, on September 18, 1995, Pratt had filed his first state post-conviction petition.*fn1

Pratt's petition was dismissed, he appealed, and those appellate proceedings concluded when the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of his post-conviction petition on May 23, 1996. The State claims that Pratt never filed a PLA from that dismissal in the Illinois Supreme Court, and Pratt does not dispute this contention.

On November 14, 1996, Pratt filed a second post-conviction petition, which was dismissed. Pratt's appeal from that dismissal concluded when the Illinois Supreme Court denied his PLA on December 5, 2001. Pratt then filed an action seeking post-judgment relief under 735 ILCS 5/2-1401, as well as a writ of mandamus, on October 6, 2004. That action was dismissed, and Pratt's appeal from that dismissal concluded when the Illinois Supreme Court denied his PLA on September 24, 2008. Pratt filed a petition for a writ of certioriari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on February 23, 2009. Pratt v. Illinois, 129 S.Ct. 1327 (2009).

On May 12, 2009,*fn2 Pratt filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising one claim: that the Illinois Department of Corrections is violating state law and his constitutional rights by imposing a term of mandatory supervised release at the conclusion of Pratt's prison sentence, rather than during his prison term.

DISCUSSION

The State moves to dismiss the instant petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Section 2244(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") imposes a one-year statute of limitations on petitions for habeas corpus relief filed by state prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2244(d)(1) specifically provides that the limitations period shall run from the latest of:

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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