Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. EX REL. DINGUS v. BUTLER, 16 C 1875. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois Number: infdco20160526b30 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 25, 2016
Latest Update: May 25, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . In another instance of the serendipity occasionally encountered in cases on this Court's calendar, its April 27, 2016 memorandum order transmitting to Anthony Dingus ("Dingus") a new set of In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") forms to enable this Court to obtain legal representation for him actually crossed in the mails with the April 28, 2016 receipt in the Clerk's Office of just such an Application dated April 18 and b
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

In another instance of the serendipity occasionally encountered in cases on this Court's calendar, its April 27, 2016 memorandum order transmitting to Anthony Dingus ("Dingus") a new set of In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") forms to enable this Court to obtain legal representation for him actually crossed in the mails with the April 28, 2016 receipt in the Clerk's Office of just such an Application dated April 18 and bearing Dingus' signature. This Court immediately determined that it would grant the Application solely in conjunction with Dingus' pending Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 4),1 and it requested the designation of a member of the Federal Defender Panel to represent Dingus.

Unfortunately it took longer than anticipated to obtain a Panel member with substantial experience in Section 2254 proceedings (as the Panel's name suggests, its members' principal activity is in the defense of criminal charges in the first instance), so that the request has been pending for some time. Now, however, this Court has been advised that the following member of that Panel is available to represent Dingus in this action:

John M. Beal, Esq. 53 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 1615 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: 312-408-2766 E-mail: johnmbeal@att.net.

Accordingly attorney Beal is now designated to serve in that capacity, and it is expected that he will shortly apprise Dingus, defense counsel and this Court as to when the Reply to respondent's Answer (see Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts) may be anticipated.

FootNotes


1. Because the filing fee for Dingus' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("Section 2254") petition is just $5 and has been paid by Dingus, the Application (Dkt. No. 14) is not treated as having sought in forma pauperis treatment in the usual sense, but it is granted in the limited sense described in the text.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer