Opinion
Case No. 15 C 3183
08-06-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. KEVIN WILLIAMS (#R26594), Petitioner, v. RANDY PFISTER, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has just received from pro se petitioner Kevin Williams ("Williams") a hand-printed document captioned "Pro Se Plaintiff's /Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Issuance of an Order for Additional Legal Supplies." Whether or not Williams' characterization of his problem as an "emergency" is something on which this Court neither has nor can express an opinion -- but in all events this action is clearly not the place to apply for relief.
This is a federal habeas action by Williams brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Section 2254"), as to which action this Court's most recent memorandum order, issued at the beginning of this week, is attached. In brief, Williams is not required to take any action in this case until after the Illinois Attorney General's Office files its answer (due September 14) to Williams' Section 2254 Petition is in hand.
Meanwhile Paragraph 9 of Williams' current filing discloses that he has no fewer than a half dozen earlier actions pending in this District Court, one dating back to 2012, three filed in 2013 and one filed in each of 2014 and 2015. To the extent that Williams has run afoul of regulations imposed by the Illinois Department of Corrections or by Pontiac Correctional Center, where Williams is in custody, his difficulties in obtaining further legal supplies are necessarily in connection with his activity in one or more of those actions, in which the presiding judge or judges are in the best position to evaluate his claims and to provide appropriate relief if called for.
Accordingly Williams' "emergency motion" is denied. For the reasons stated in this brief memorandum order, that denial is of course without prejudice.
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 6, 2015
ATTACHMENT
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's most recent writing in connection with the attempted invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 by state court prisoner Kevin Williams ("Williams") its July 14, 2015 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion"), issued with two earlier opinions attached -- identified "a glitch in handling by the Clerk's Office that had cast a false light on the matter." As that July 14 Opinion began:
All further references to Title 28's provisions will simply take the form "Section --," omitting the prefatory "28 U.S.C. §." --------
This attempted 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") that had been filed pro se in this District Court by repeat litigator Kevin Williams ("Williams") has been snake-bitten from the very outset.
Now Williams has come forward with a supplement to his previously filed motion for the appointment of counsel to represent him pro bono publico in this habeas action. This Court will indeed keep in mind Williams' efforts to obtain legal representation on his own when it comes to consider the supplement -- but as the Opinion explained, the requested input from the Attorney General's Office in its answer to Williams' Petition, which must be submitted on or before September 14, 2015, is needed to provide this Court with a figurative full deck so that the question of his representation by counsel can then be addressed.
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 3, 2015