Opinion
Case No. 01-cv-0200-MJR
April 3, 2001
ORDER
In August 1989, Anthony Mitchell was indicted on two counts of first degree murder in the stabbing deaths of David and Dawn Lieneke. A jury trial conducted in St. Clair County (Illinois) Circuit Court resulted in guilty verdicts on both counts. The jury found Mitchell eligible for the death penalty and determined that no mitigating factors precluded imposition of the death penalty. The Circuit Court sentenced Mitchell to death.
In the Fall of 1992, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed Mitchell's convictions and sentence on direct appeal. Mitchell then collaterally attacked the convictions and sentence by filing a petition for post-conviction relief in St. Clair County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Mitchell appealed. In January 2000, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the St. Clair County Circuit Court, noting:
Defendant's post-conviction petition . . . does not make a substantial showing that defendant's constitutional rights were violated. Accordingly, the court did not err in dismissing the petition without
an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County is affirmed.
People v. Mitchell, 727 N.E.2d 254, 347 (Ill. 2000), cert. denied sub nom. Mitchell v. Illinois, 121 S.Ct. 388 (October 30, 2000). The Illinois Supreme Court set May 24, 2000 as the date for imposition of the death sentence entered by the Circuit Court.
The record before this Court is incomplete as to what initially stopped the original execution date. It appears that Mitchell unsuccessfully sought a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. On November 30, 2000, the Illinois Supreme Court stayed its mandate pending "final disposition of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus or the expiration of the period within which said petition may be filed. . . ." Thus, the Illinois Supreme Court has stayed Mitchell's execution until this Court disposes of Mitchell's habeas petition. In an abundance of caution, and to remove any doubt, this Court also STAYS Mitchell's EXECUTION, until final disposition of the habeas proceeding now before this Court.
On March 29, 2001, attorneys Anne Carlson and James Geis filed on Mitchell's behalf a "Placeholder Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" in this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition names Roger Cowan, Warden of Menard Correctional Center, as Respondent.
Mitchell currently is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. The proper respondent in a collateral attack is the petitioner's current custodian. See Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 189, 190 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171 (1997).
The petition asserts four central grounds for federal habeas relief, including: (1) the Illinois Supreme Court violated Mitchell's due process and equal protection rights by applying a heightened "pleading burden" to Mitchell's claim that he should have been given a competency hearing, since he had been taking psychotropic drugs during the time of his prosecution; (2) Mitchell was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel by his trial attorney's failure to seek suppression of physical evidence as "fruit of the poisonous tree;" (3) Mitchell was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's failure to introduce expert testimony, both at the suppression hearing and at trial, regarding (a) Mitchell's "borderline retardation" and (b) the effects of certain medications Mitchell was taking for epilepsy; and (4) Mitchell was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel at his capital sentencing hearing, because his attorneys failed to discover and present reliable mitigating evidence.
The undersigned Judge received the "Placeholder Petition" on Friday, March 30, 2001, along with a motion by Mitchell for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), a motion for appointment of Geis and Carlson as counsel for Mitchell (Doc. 3), a motion for leave to file an amended habeas petition within 120 days (Doc. 4), and an "Ex Parte Motion for Interim Fees in a Capital Habeas Proceeding" (Doc. 7). The Court now GRANTS the motion for appointment and APPOINTS Geis and Carlson as Petitioner Mitchell's counsel (Doc. 3), nunc pro tunc, effective December 5, 2000.
Rule 4 of the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS provides that the Judge to whom a § 2254 petition is presented shall order the respondent to file an "answer or other pleading" within the period of time fixed by the court. Rule 5 explains that the respondent's answer "shall respond to the allegations of the petition," "state whether the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies including any post-conviction remedies available to him," and indicate what transcripts are available and when they can be furnished.
Habeas petitioners often seek leave to file amended petitions. As a general rule, the District Court may not allow amendments to a habeas petition after an answer to the petition has been filed. See § 2266(b)(3)(B); Booth v. Maryland, 112 F.3d 139, 140 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 905 (1998).
Typically in a § 2254 proceeding, after the respondent files the answer, the Court sets deadlines by which (a) the petitioner must file a memorandum of law supporting his petition, (b) the respondent must file a memorandum of law opposing the petition, and (c) the petitioner may file a reply.
28 U.S.C. § 2266 imposes special time constraints for the disposition of § 2254 petitions filed by persons under a sentence of death. Section 2266(b)(1)(A) mandates that District Courts render a final determination and enter a final judgment on any application for habeas corpus relief in a capital case "not later than 180 days after the date on which the application is filed." Thus, all five stages of the § 2254 pleadings (amended petition, answer, brief in support, brief in opposition, and reply) must be sequenced in a manner that leaves sufficient time for this Court's review of the voluminous record and preparation of an Order ruling on all issues raised therein. Cognizant of this tight timetable (and the fact that this Court must finally dispose of this matter by September 25, 2001), the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Mitchell's motion for leave to file an amended habeas petition within 120 days (Doc. 4). The motion is denied in that the Court will not permit a 120-day extension. The motion is granted in that the Court will permit additional time for the filing of an amended § 2254 petition.
Some Judges have interpreted the 180-day disposition deadline to run from the date the amended petition is filed (see, e.g., Judge Gilbert's October 5, 2000 Order in Ganus v. Welborn, 00-cv-0076, Southern District of Illinois). If counsel for Petitioner Mitchell have case law supporting this interpretation of § 2266(b)(1)(A) and believe the deadline set in this Order for filing of the amended petition is not workable, they can furnish the case law to the Court and seek the entry of a revised scheduling Order herein.
• Mitchell's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus must be filed in this Court on or before June 18, 2001.
• Respondent Cowan must file an answer to the amended petition on or before July 18, 2001.
• Mitchell must file a memorandum of law supporting the amended habeas petition on or before August 3, 2001.
• Respondent Cowan must file a memorandum of law opposing the amended habeas petition on or before August 17, 2001.
• If Mitchell chooses to file a reply, he must file any reply on or before August 24, 2001.
This time-table leaves the Court less than one month in which to review all pleadings, exhibits, documents, and transcripts herein and rule on this habeas petition. Accordingly, the Court envisions granting no extensions of these deadlines.
By separate Order, the Court is granting the "Ex Parte Motion for Interim Fees in a Capital Habeas Corpus Proceeding" (Doc. 7). Although technically not filed under seal, that motion was placed under seal in the Clerk's Office of this Court. The motion (and separate corresponding Order) need not be sealed. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to UNSEAL and place in the Court file the March 29th motion for interim fees (Doc. 7). Finally, the Court will issue a separate Order ruling on Mitchell's March 29, 2001 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.