Opinion
94 CR 481.
September 16, 2008
MEMORANDUM
Late last week this Court received from Richard Bailey ("Bailey") the attached letter in which Bailey seeks the appointment of counsel, presumably under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. But because Bailey provides no clue at all as to the nature of any claim for relief that he might advance, this Court cannot determine whether he is potentially entitled to such representation.
Indeed, it seems quite unlikely (perhaps an understatement) that Bailey can establish even a colorable basis for post-conviction relief at this point. Some relevant background information is provided by the attached September 11, 2003 order from our Court of Appeals, which identified part (but not all) of Bailey's efforts to obtain such relief after that court's 1996 affirmance of his conviction and sentence. In addition, back in June 2001 Bailey had gone to the Court of Appeals to request its authorization for a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Section 2255") motion, and he then did so again in March 2005, thus confirming and reconfirming his awareness of the limitations on such repeated efforts as set out in Section 2255(h) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244.
Although attorney Kathleen Zellner did not represent Bailey initially or on his direct appeal, she handled a portion of his post-conviction efforts. As Bailey's current letter reflects, he has also transmitted a copy to attorney Zellner.
Because Bailey has also sent a copy of his current letter to attorney Zellner, this Court will await further input from her (or from Bailey himself if he has an opportunity to communicate with her) to provide a more meaningful — and more persuasive — request. In the meantime nothing can or will be done by this Court. United States Court of Appeals Circuit Judge Circuit Judge Circuit Judge Petitioner-Appellant, v. Respondent-Appellee. Judge.
If and when Bailey fleshes out his request, it must also be accompanied by an appropriate financial showing. For that purpose this Court's minute clerk is sending copies of the requisite form to Bailey together with a copy of this memorandum.
ORDER
In 1995 Richard Bailey pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to conduct racketeering, racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and unlawful monetary transactions. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. See United States v. Bailey, 97 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 1996). In 1997 Bailey filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court dismissed as untimely. United States v, Bailey, No. 97 C 7665, 1997 WL 757869 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 1997). Bailey appealed, but then voluntarily dismissed his appeal. See Fed.R.App.Proc. 42(b).In 2002 Bailey filed what he called a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking relief from the district court's 1997 dismissal of his § 2255 motion. The district court first dismissed Bailey's motion as a successive § 2255 motion filed without permission from this court, United States v. Bailey, No. 97 C 7665, 2002 WL 31526557 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2002), but upon "further consideration" construed Bailey's filing as a 60(b) motion and denied it. United States v. Bailey, No. 97 C 7665, 2002 WL 31779911 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2002). Bailey then filed a motion "to vacate or requesting clarification," which the district court denied. Bailey appeals from the district court's denial of his motion requesting clarification, and we summarily AFFIRM the district court's judgment. See Dunlap v. Litscher, 301 F.3d 873 (2002).