Dingus v. Butler et al
Petitioner: Anthony Dingus
Respondent: Kimberly Butler and Lisa Madigan
Case Number: 1:2016cv01875
Filed: February 1, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Randolph
Presiding Judge: Milton I. Shadur
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 47 MEMORANDUM Order issued approving the payment to attorney Beal. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/10/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )
December 6, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 39 MEMORANDUM Order: Petitioner's motion to alter or amend judgment 38 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/6/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
November 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 36 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/2/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
July 27, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MEMORANDUM Order: Motion hearing held. This Court dismisses Dingus' original motion without prejudice to attorney Beal's filing of an amended Section 2255 motion. That filing is to retain the same 16 C 1875 civil case number. By agreement August 19, 2016 was set as the filing date for attorney Beal's reply. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/27/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
May 25, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 16 MEMORANDUM Order: Petitioner's In Forma Pauperis Application 14 filed solely in conjunction with Motion 4 is granted. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 4 is granted. The Court designates John M. Beal, Esq. a member of the Federal Defender Panel to represent petitioner Anthony Dingus. It is expected that attorney Beal 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. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/25/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
April 27, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MEMORANDUM Order: Petitioner Dingus is given one more chance, for which purpose he is being sent another set of the In Forma Pauperis Application (Application) forms so that he can promptly comply with this Order. If he does not do so, this Court wi ll not be able to grant Dingus' motion for counsel and will have to deal with this action solely on the basis of Dingus' original Petition and respondent's Answer. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/27/2016:Mailed notice & 3 copies of Application(clw, )
April 11, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MEMORANDUM Order: This Court (1) determines that the interests of justice require the provision of legal representation to Dingus under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), (2) requests this District Court's Federal Defender Program to designate one of its staff attorneys or a panel member to provide such representation and (3) orders the designated counsel to file a Reply to the Answer on or before May 16, 2016 (see Section 2254 Rule 5(e)). This Court is transmitting to petitioner Dingus thr ee copies of the Clerk's-Office-supplied form of In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application"), so that Dingus can complete and promptly submit to the Clerk's Office two signed counterparts of the Application Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/11/2016:Mailed notice & 3 copies of Application. (clw, )
February 8, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 5 MEMORANDUM Order: Despite the passage of almost a full decade since the conviction of Anthony Dingus ("Dingus") on two counts of first degree murder, on which he is serving a custodial sentence of 50 years, the threshold review of Dingus&# 039; litigation history by this Court's law clerk has disclosed the apparent likelihood that the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) has operated to bring Dingus' just-filed Petition within the one-year limitation period esta blished by Section 2244(d)(1). Accordingly this Court complies with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts by ordering respondent Warden Kimberly Butler to file an answer or motion directed to the Peti tion on or before April 8, 2016, with paper copies of that responsive pleading (1) to be served upon Dingus and (2) (pursuant to LR 5.2(f)) to be delivered to this Court's chambers. This Court will then determine the next appropriate steps to be taken in this litigation. Petitioner's motion to defer his payment of the $5 filing fee 3 is granted. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/8/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dingus v. Butler et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Anthony Dingus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Kimberly Butler
Represented By: David Harris Iskowich
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Lisa Madigan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?