Sunmola v. USA
| Olayinka Ilumsa Sunmola |
| USA |
| 3:2019cv00219 |
| February 19, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Prisoner: Vacate Sentence |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 15, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part #4 Motion for Order Requiring Counsel to Provide Written Response by USA. The United States moves for an order from the Court authorizing Sunmola's former attorneys, David Brengle and Peter Cohen, to provide affidavits addressing Sunmola's ineffective assistance of counsel claims against them. Many federal circuit courts have held, and this Court FINDS, that where a habeas petitioner raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he implicitly waives the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the petitioner and his prior defense counsel that are at issue in the habeas proceeding. See United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 977-78 (10th Cir. 2009); see also In re Lott, F. App'x 658 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 716-17 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F.3d 1156, 1178 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Tasby v. United States, 504 F.2d 332, 336 (8th Cir. 1974); see also Laughner v. United States, 373 F.2d 326, 327 (5th Cir. 1967). In many prior Section 2255 proceedings in this Court, prior defense counsel have voluntarily furnished affidavits to the United States refuting allegations of ineffective assistance. The Court does not feel it appropriate to compel defense counsel to provide affidavits. For that reason, the Court denies in part the motion. Failure to provide affidavits, however, may result in an order requiring these attorneys to appear for an evidentiary hearing that otherwise would be unnecessary if affidavits had been provided. The motion is granted, however, to the extent the Government seeks an extension of the current response deadline. The Government's response is now due on or before May 10, 2019. Petitioner may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) on or before May 24, 2019. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/5/2019. (bak)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Order toTrial Counsel Requiring Written Response by USA. (Stump, Nathan) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines as to MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. Responses due by 4/15/2019. (mar) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: A review of the Court's docket reveals Petitioner Sunmola's pending pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The Section 2255 petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4 and the USA is DIRECTED to respond to the petition on or before April 15, 2019. Petitioner may file a reply brief (no longer than 5 pages) on or before April 30, 2019. If review of the briefs indicates that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the Court will set the hearing by separate notice. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 2/28/2019. (bak)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Nathan D Stump on behalf of USA (Stump, Nathan) |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Olayinka Ilumsa Sunmola. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Letter to AUSA)(jaj) |
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Sunmola v. USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: USA | |
| Represented By: | Adam E. Hanna |
| Represented By: | Nathan D Stump |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: Olayinka Ilumsa Sunmola | |
| 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.
