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.

Butler v. Ryker

May 4, 2010

STEVE A. BUTLER, PETITIONER,
v.
LEE RYKER, WARDEN, LAWRENCE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeanne E. Scott United States District Judge

OPINION

JEANNE E. SCOTT, U.S. District Judge

This cause is before the Court on Petitioner Steve A. Butler's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Petition) (d/e 1) and Motion for Stay in Abeyance (Motion for Stay) (d/e 4). Also before the Court is Respondent Lee Ryker's Response to Motion for Stay and Respondent's Cross-Motion to Dismiss (Motion to Dismiss) (d/e 7). Petitioner filed his Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (d/e 12), and Respondent filed his Reply in Support of Cross-Motion to Dismiss (d/e 13).

This matter is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is granted, the Petition is dismissed, and the Motion for Stay is denied as moot.

FACTS

On April 15, 1998, a jury in Sangamon County, Illinois, convicted Petitioner of the first-degree murder of Michael Jones. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. A, Illinois Appellate Court Order of April 25, 2000. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a forty-five-year term of imprisonment. Id. Petitioner appealed his conviction and sentence to the Illinois Appellate Court, which affirmed his conviction and remanded the case for an amended judgment of sentence that would reflect Petitioner's entitlement to good-time credit under Illinois law. Id. at p. 11. Petitioner filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) with the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the PLA on July 5, 2000. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. B, Illinois Supreme Court Order of July 5, 2000. Petitioner did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.

On July 8, 2000, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County.*fn1 Motion to Dismiss, Ex. C, Petition for Post Conviction Relief. The court dismissed the petition on September 28, 2006, and Petitioner appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. D, Circuit Court of Sangamon County Order of September 28, 2006. On June 4, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of the post-conviction petition. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. E, Illinois Appellate Court Order of June 4, 2008. Petitioner filed a PLA in the Illinois Supreme Court, which denied the PLA on November 26, 2008. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. F, Illinois Supreme Court Order of November 26, 2008.

On December 1, 2009, Petitioner filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. G, Pro Se Petition for Post Conviction Relief. This second post-conviction proceeding is still pending before the Circuit Court of Sangamon County. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. H, Docket Sheet in Sangamon County Case No. 1997-CF-001178.

Petitioner filed this case on December 17, 2009, alleging various grounds for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petition. That same day, Petitioner filed his Motion for Stay, asking the Court to delay ruling on the Petition until the Illinois courts have an opportunity to adjudicate his second state post-conviction petition.

ANALYSIS

Respondent argues that the Court should deny Petitioner's Motion to Stay and dismiss his Petition because the latter is barred by the statute of limitations. The Court agrees.

The Petition is untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Section 2244, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), contains a one-year statute of limitations that runs 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 ...


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.