Dixon v. Lashbrook

Dixon v. Lashbrook

Petitioner:	Darnell Dixon
Respondent:	Jacqueline Lashbrook
Case Number:	1:2017cv01142
Filed:	February 13, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Randolph
Presiding Judge:	Robert W. Gettleman
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
January 14, 2019	Filing 46 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The State's motion to reconsider this court's earlier ruling in favor of petitioner on his procedural actual innocence claim is denied. Petitioner's motion to supplement his petition 44 is granted. On the merits, petitioner raises, in his petition 5 and amended petition 40 , four claims for relief: (1) he was denied due process when the state court excluded evidence that the State had dismissed charges against Langston; (2) he received ineff ective assistance of counsel when his trial lawyer failed to object to the exclusion; (3) his new evidence shows that he is actually innocent, and (4) his new evidence shows that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. Because the due process a nd ineffective assistance are without merit, a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted on those claims. Concerning petitioner's substantive actual innocence and prosecutorial misconduct claims, the court directs the parties to submit supplemen tal briefs concerning the evidence that would or would not be presented at an evidentiary hearing. The briefs must be submitted on the following dates and conform to the following requirements: Issue 1 Concerning petitioner's substantive actual innocence claim, what evidence, if any, would be produced at an evidentiary hearing that would entitle petitioner to relief? Issue 2 Concerning petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct claim, what evidence, if any, would be produced at an evidentia ry hearing that would entitle petitioner to relief? Length: Each brief must contain fewer than nine pages, or 2,000 words. Due dates: Petitioner's brief is due on or before February 4, 2019. The State's response is due on or before Marc h 4, 2019. Petitioner's may file a reply on or before March 18, 2019. This case is set for a hearing on March 20, 2019, at 9:45 a.m. At that hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the court should conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioners substantive actual innocence claim, his prosecutorial misconduct claim, or both. Signed by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on 1/14/2019. Mailed notice (cn).
August 31, 2017	Filing 19 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on August 31, 2017. Mailed notice (ph, )

Date Filed

Document Text

January 14, 2019

Filing 46 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The State's motion to reconsider this court's earlier ruling in favor of petitioner on his procedural actual innocence claim is denied. Petitioner's motion to supplement his petition 44 is granted. On the merits, petitioner raises, in his petition 5 and amended petition 40 , four claims for relief: (1) he was denied due process when the state court excluded evidence that the State had dismissed charges against Langston; (2) he received ineff ective assistance of counsel when his trial lawyer failed to object to the exclusion; (3) his new evidence shows that he is actually innocent, and (4) his new evidence shows that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct. Because the due process a nd ineffective assistance are without merit, a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted on those claims. Concerning petitioner's substantive actual innocence and prosecutorial misconduct claims, the court directs the parties to submit supplemen tal briefs concerning the evidence that would or would not be presented at an evidentiary hearing. The briefs must be submitted on the following dates and conform to the following requirements: Issue 1 Concerning petitioner's substantive actual innocence claim, what evidence, if any, would be produced at an evidentiary hearing that would entitle petitioner to relief? Issue 2 Concerning petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct claim, what evidence, if any, would be produced at an evidentia ry hearing that would entitle petitioner to relief? Length: Each brief must contain fewer than nine pages, or 2,000 words. Due dates: Petitioner's brief is due on or before February 4, 2019. The State's response is due on or before Marc h 4, 2019. Petitioner's may file a reply on or before March 18, 2019. This case is set for a hearing on March 20, 2019, at 9:45 a.m. At that hearing, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether the court should conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioners substantive actual innocence claim, his prosecutorial misconduct claim, or both. Signed by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on 1/14/2019. Mailed notice (cn).

August 31, 2017

Filing 19 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on August 31, 2017. Mailed notice (ph, )

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: Dixon v. Lashbrook
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Darnell Dixon
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: Jacqueline Lashbrook
Represented By:	Eldad Zvi Malamuth
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?