No. 11A469 ______________________________ (Seventh Circuit No.

11-1945) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 2011

LATHIERIAL BOYD, Petitioner, v. LEONTA JACKSON, Warden, Respondent.

______________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ______________________________ Richard H. McLeese 900 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 6W Chicago, IL 60607 312.492.7273 312.268.6291 (fax) RMcLeeseLaw@aol.com January, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES------------------------------------------------------- ii QUESTIONS PRESENT FOR REVIEW---------------------------------------- 1 ORDERS AND OPINIONS BELOW------------------------------------------- 2 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT---------------------------------------------- 2 STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED IN THE CASE------------------ 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE---------------------------------------------------- 3 REASON WHY THE WRIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED------------------- 4 The Writ Should Be Allowed Because There Is A Split In The Circuits On The Question Whether An Otherwise Time-Barred Habeas Petition Can Be Considered On Its Merits Where The Inmate Shows He Is Innocent Of The Crime For Which He Is In Prison ADDENDUM----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 APPENDIX--------------------------------------------------------------------------- following Addendum

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Cousin v. Lensing, 310 F.3d 843 (5th Cir. 2002)-------------------------------David v. Hall, 318 F.3d 343 (1st Cir. 2003)-------------------------------------Escamilla v. Jungwirth, 426 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2005)-------------------------Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2002)------------------------------Gildon v. Bowen, 384 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2004)---------------------------------Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)-------------------------Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2010)---------------------------------Riva v. Ficco, 615 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2010)----------------------------------------San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2011)-----------------------Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2005)------------------------------------Statutory Provisions 28 U.S.C. 2244-----------------------------------------------------------------------

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

ii

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Can an otherwise time-barred habeas petition be considered on its merits where the inmate shows he is actually innocent of the crime for which he is in prison?

ORDERS AND OPINIONS BELOW In this habeas proceeding, the district judge granted the States motion to dismiss Lathierial Boyds petition as time-barred.1 The judge granted a certificate of appealability on this questionwhether an otherwise timebarred habeas petition can be considered on its merits where the inmate shows he is actually innocent of the crime for which he is in prisonbecause the circuit courts of appeal are split on this issue.2 On appeal the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the judgment, relying on Seventh Circuit precedent foreclos[ing] any tolling argument based on actual innocence.3 A copy of the Seventh Circuits Order appears in the Appendix. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The Seventh Circuits Order affirming the judgment was entered on May 31, 2011.4 A timely petition for rehearing was denied on August 11, 2011. A motion to extend the time for filing this petition was granted, extending the due date to January 8, 2012. (Because January 8th is a Sunday, the effective due date is January 9, 2012.) This Court's jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
1

Boyd v. Pierce, No. 08 CV 4257 (N.D. Ill.), Docket (Dkt.) #97 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, granting the States motion to dismiss; available through PACER). Id. at Dkt. #119 (Order granting, in part, our request for a certificate of appealability) at 5-6. Boyd v. Pierce, No. 11-1945 (7th Cir.), Order of May 31, 2011 (copy in Appendix).

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED IN THE CASE 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1) provides in relevant part: A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. Basis For The District Courts Jurisdiction The district court's jurisdiction over this habeas case was based on 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254. II. Background Lathierial Boyd, an Illinois prisoner who was convicted of murder and related offenses, is serving a sentence of 82 years incarceration.5 Boyd has been incarcerated since 1990; his projected date of release is in 2031.6 As detailed in the district court, an ever-growing body of evidencevirtually all of it undisputedprovides support for the proposition that Boyd is actually innocent of the crime for which he has been incarcerated for over 20 years.7 The evidence of Boyds innocence is summarized in the accompanying Addendum, as is the prosecutions case against him.

4 5

See id.

Boyd v. Pierce, No. 08 CV 4257 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. #80 (Petitioners Response To The States Motion To Dismiss) at 2-3 (available through PACER). Id. Id. at 17-18.

6 7

The district judge found that Boyds habeas petition contained several colorable constitutional claims.8 But the judge did not reach the merits of those claims.9 Instead, despite the largely undisputed evidence of Boyds innocence, the judge dismissed his habeas petition as time-barred, relying on controlling Seventh Circuit precedent barring consideration of an otherwise time-barred petition on the basis of actual innocence.10 REASON WHY THE WRIT SHOULD BE ALLOWED The Writ Should Be Allowed Because There Is A Split In The Circuits On The Question Whether An Otherwise Time-Barred Habeas Petition Can Be Considered On Its Merits Where The Inmate Shows He Is Innocent Of The Crime For Which He Is In Prison This is a case that, we submit, cries out for review by this Court, because there is a stark split in the circuits on the question raised: whether an otherwise time-barred habeas petition can be considered on its merits where the inmate shows he is innocent of the crime for which he is in prison. In three circuits (First, Fifth, Seventh), the answer to this question is no. In four other circuits (Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh), the answer is yes. In a recent en banc decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that an otherwise time-barred habeas petition can be considered under these circumstances (then concluding that the petitioner had failed to make the

8 9

Boyd v. Pierce, No. 08 CV 4257 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. #119 at 2. Id. at Dkt. #97. See id. at 7-8. 4

10

requisite showing of innocence), summarized the present state of the law this way: In recognizing an equitable exception based on a credible showing of actual innocence, we join three of our sister circuits on an issue that has divided the courts of appeal. See Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 602 (6th Cir. 2005); Lopez v. Trani, 628 F.3d 1228, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2010); San Martin v. McNeil, 633 F.3d 1257, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2011). *** The First, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits do not recognize an actual innocence exception under any circumstances. See David v. Hall, 318 F.3d 343, 347 (1st Cir. 2003); Cousin v. Lensing, 310 F.3d 843, 849 (5th Cir. 2002); Escamilla v. Jungwirth, 426 F.3d 868, 871-72 (7th Cir. 2005). But see Riva v. Ficco, 615 F.3d 35, 44 n.4 (1st Cir. 2010) (characterizing David as merely "expressing skepticism" about whether an actual innocence claim can excuse AEDPA's limitations period, and remanding to the district court to consider the issue in the first instance); Gildon v. Bowen, 384 F.3d 883, 887 (7th Cir. 2004) (adopting the Eighth Circuit's approach in Flanders v. Graves, 299 F.3d 974, 976-78 (8th Cir. 2002)). The Eighth Circuit has left open the possibility that actual innocence could bear on a claim for equitable tolling. See Flanders, 299 F.3d at 976-78. Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929, 932-33 & n.6 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The availability of habeas relief should not turn on a fortuitythe state in which an inmate happens to be imprisoned. The doors of the federal courts would be open to Boyd if he were incarcerated in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, or Tennessee; in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington; in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, or Wyoming; in Alabama, Florida, or Georgia. He should not be denied entry simply because

he happens to be incarcerated in Illinois. Nothing is to be gained by allowing this conflict between the circuits to fester. It is time, we submit, for this Court to decide this question. Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________ Lawyer for Petitioner Lathierial Boyd Richard H. McLeese 900 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 6W Chicago, IL 60607 312.492.7273 312.268.6291 (fax) RMcLeeseLaw@aol.com

ADDENDUM Summary Of The Prosecutions Case Against Lathierial Boyd And The Evidence Of His Innocence This Addendum has four parts: (1) overview, see Part 1, infra; (2) the prosecutions case against Lathierial Boyd, see Part 2, infra; (3) the evidence of Lathierial Boyds innocence, see Part 3, infra; and (4) Lathierial Boyds efforts, over more than 20 years of incarceration, to overturn his conviction, establish his innocence, and regain his freedom. See Part 4, infra. 1. Overview Lathierial Boyd was charged in April of 1990 with murder, attempted murder, and various related offenses.11 He was tried, and found guilty, in October of that year by a judge sitting without a jury.12 That December he was sentenced to a total of 82 years imprisonment (55 years for murder; 27

11

See Boyd v. Pierce, No. 08 CV 4257 (N.D. Ill.), Dkt. #80 (Petitioners Response To The States Motion To Dismiss) at 2 (available through PACER). See id.

12

years, consecutive, for attempted murder).13 His Projected Parole Date is 04/10/2031.14 The crimes for which Boyd was convicted were committed at 2 a.m. on February 24, 1990.15 They took place outside a reggae bar located on the north side of Chicago, about a block from Wrigley Field.16 At the time the street was well-lighted.17 Many people were out.18 Shortly before these crimes were committed, two individuals outside the bar, Michael Fleming and Ricky Walker, were trying to sell fake marijuana.19 A car screeched to a halt and an armed assassin emerged, spraying victims with an uzi.20 Fleming was shot and killed.21 Walker was shot and paralyzed.22 Three other people were also shot, sustaining relatively minor injuries.23
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

See id. at 2-3. http://www.idoc.state.il.us/(Inmate Search: Latherial [sic] Boyd). See id. at 3. See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. 8

2.

The Prosecutions Case Against Lathierial Boyd This section has three parts: (1) the prosecutions theory of the case, see Part 2, a, infra; (2) evidence the prosecution introduced, see Part 2, b, infra; and (3) evidence the prosecution did not introduce. See Part 2, c, infra.

a.

The Prosecutions Theory Of The Case: Lathierial Boyd, Toting An Uzi On A Crowded, Well-Lighted Street Outside A Bar Near Wrigley Field, Shot One Man To Death, Shot And Paralyzed A Second Man, And Shot And Wounded Several Others All Because One Of These Individuals Had Not Paid A Debt, From Past Drug Dealings, Of $1,000 According to the State, Lathierial Boyd was the uzi-wielding assassin

who, outside a bar on a crowded, well-lighted street near Wrigley Field, shot one man to death, shot and paralyzed a second man, and shot and wounded several others.24 The motive for these crimes, according to the State, was that the man who was left paralyzed, Ricky Warner, had not paid Boyd money that was owed from past drug transactions.25 Warner was the only eyewitness to identify Boyd as the shooter.26 The amount of money in

24 25 26

See id. at 4. See id. See id. at 4-5.

question, according to Warner, was $1,000.27 (Coincidentally, according to Warner, he was selling fake marijuana that night to get money to pay this debt.28) At the time these crimes were committed, Boyd was 24 years old.29 He had worked as (among other things) a model, appearing in (among other places) the Style Section of the Chicago Tribune.30 His criminal history was limited to three relatively minor offenses (i.e., misdemeanor battery and violation of an order of protection, for which he was sentenced to one year of court supervision; misdemeanor theft, for which he was sentenced to one year of probation; and possessing a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to 14 months of nonreporting probation and a $100 fine).31 b. Evidence The Prosecution Introduced The prosecutions case had three main parts: (1) the testimony of Ricky Warner, the man who was shot and paralyzed, see Part b, i, infra;

27 28 29 30 31

See id. at 5. See id. See id. See id. See id.

10

(2) the testimony of Herbert Warner, Rickys father, see Part b, ii, infra; and (3) a piece of paper that, according to Ricky, was given to him by Lathierial Boyd a couple of months before the shooting and contained Boyds beeper number, his partners beeper number, and various figures relating to drug transactions. See Part b, iii, infra. i. Testimony of Ricky Warner As stated, Ricky Warner was the only eyewitness to identify Boyd as the shooter. According to Ricky: (1) He and Boyd, whom hed known for several years, had an ongoing feud.32 (2) He owed Boyd $1,000 from past drug dealings. He was selling fake marijuana that night to get money to pay this debt.33 (3) Outside the bar that night, when he was trying to sell fake marijuana, he saw Boyd about ten feet away, but he did not see a gun.34 After shooting him, Boyd got into a white car.35

32

See id. at 6. See id. See id. at 6-7. See id. at 7.

33 34 35

11

On at least one occasion before he identified Boyd as the shooter, Warner had told the police that he did not know who shot him.36 ii. Testimony of Herbert Warner According to Herbert Warner (Rickys father): (1) He had a confrontation with a person he identified as Boyd on two occasions.37 (2) These confrontations occurred at his house five or six months prior to the shooting.38 (3) Boyd said that Warners son, Ricky, owed him money. The amount, according to Herbert Warner, was $600. Boyd threatened to kill Warner and his family if Ricky did not pay him.39 According to Warner, Boyd arrived at his house in a car that had a vanity license plate: RAT (which, according to Ricky, was Boyds nickname).40 (This license-plate testimony was referred to by the prosecutor in closing argument and by the trial judge in finding Boyd guilty.41)

36 37 38 39 40 41

See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. at 7-8. See id. at 8.

12

iii.

A Piece Of Paper (Peoples Ex. 20) That, According To Ricky Warner, Lathierial Boyd Gave Him A Couple Of Months Before The Shooting With Beeper Numbers For Him and His Partner A piece of paper, referred to at trial as Peoples Exhibit 20, was

introduced into evidence. According to Ricky Warner: (1) He was given this piece of paper by Lathierial Boyd a couple of months before he was shot.42 (2) It had beeper numbers for Boyd and his partner Reggie, as well as numbers relating to drug transactions.43 According to the trial judge, this piece of paper served to corroborate Rickys testimony.44 c. Evidence The Prosecution Did Not Introduce The prosecutions case included none of the following evidence. i. No Eyewitness Testimony Corroborating Ricky Warners Identification Of Lathierial Boyd As The Shooter As stated, this crime was committed on a well-lighted street.45 Many people were around.46 Only one eyewitness identified Boyd as the shooter:

42 43 44 45 46

See id. See id. See id. See id. at 9. See id.

13

Ricky Warner.47 Nine eyewitnesses viewed a line-up that included Boyd.48 None identified Boyd as the man who shot Ricky Warner and the others.49 ii. No Physical Evidence Corroborating Ricky Warners Identification Of Lathierial Boyd As The Shooter No physical evidence was introduced to corroborate Ricky Warners identification of Lathierial Boyd as the shooter.50 iii. No Inculpatory Statements By Lathierial Boyd Corroborating Ricky Warners Identification Of Him As The Shooter No inculpatory statements by Lathierial Boyd were introduced to corroborate Ricky Warners identification of him as the shooter.51 (Boyd has consistently maintained, for over 20 years, that he is innocent.52) iv. Nothing To Corroborate Herbert Warners Testimony That Lathierial Boyd Had A RAT Vanity License Plate No evidence was introduced, such as records from the Illinois Secretary of States Office, to corroborate Herbert Warners testimony that

47 48 49 50 51 52

See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. at 10. See id.

14

Lathierial Boyd arrived at his house in a car with a RAT vanity license plate. 53 v. Nothing To Corroborate Ricky Warners Testimony That The Handwriting On The Piece Of Paper (Peoples Exhibit 20) Was Lathierial Boyds No evidence was introduced, such as testimony from a handwriting expert, to corroborate Ricky Warners testimony that the handwriting on Exhibit 20 was Lathierial Boyds.54 vi. Nothing To Corroborate Ricky Warners Testimony That The Beeper Numbers On The Piece Of Paper (Peoples Exhibit 20) Belonged To Lathierial Boyd And His Partner No evidence was introduced, such as records from a pager company, to corroborate Ricky Warners testimony that the beeper numbers on Exhibit 20 belonged to Lathierial Boyd and his partner Reggie.55 3. The Evidence Of Lathierial Boyds Innocence Because of (among other things) constitutionally deficient performance by Boyds trial counsel, none of the following evidence of Boyds innocence was presented at trial.

53 54 55

See id. See id. See id. at 11.

15

a.

Disinterested Eyewitnesses Provided A Description Of The Shooter That Did Not Match Lathierial Boyd As stated, only one eyewitness identified Lathierial Boyd as the

shooter: Ricky Warner.56 None of the nine disinterested eyewitnesses who viewed a line-up including Boyd identified him as the shooter.57 Not only did the other eyewitnesses fail to identify Boyd; they provided a description of the shooter that did not match him. Their descriptions of the shooter differed from Boyd in each of the following respects (among others): (1) Height: Eyewitnesses described the shooter as 5-106-0.58 Boyd is taller than that: 61, according to one later police report;59 74 1/2, according to the Illinois Department of Corrections.60 (2) Weight: Eyewitnesses described the shooter as 170190 pounds.61 Boyd is heavier than that: 215 pounds according

56 57 58 59 60 61

See id. See id. See id. at 12. See id. See id. See id.

16

to the later police report;62 209 pounds according to the Illinois Department of Corrections.63 (3) Complexion: Eyewitnesses described the shooters complexion as med dk.64 Boyd is lighter than that: he is a very light skinned African American.65 b. Disinterested Eyewitnesses Provided A Description Of The Shooters Car That Did Not Match Ricky Warners Testimony As stated, Ricky Warner testified that, on the night of the shooting, Boyd had a white car.66 That doesnt match the description provided by eyewitnesses, who described it as brown, maroon, or copper.67 c. Disinterested Eyewitnesses Provided A Description Of The Shooters Departure From The Scene That Did Not Match Ricky Warners Testimony As stated, Ricky Warner testified that he saw Boyd leave the scene, after shooting him, in a white car.68 Thats not how disinterested

62 63 64 65 66 67 68

See id. See id. See id. See id. See id. at 13. See id. See id.

17

eyewitnesses said the shooter left the crime scene. According to them, the shooter ran SB on Clark to WB on Cornelia.69 d. According To Ricky Warners Brother, Ricky Told Him That He Did Not Know Who Shot Him A sworn statement by Ricky Warners brother, James Fleming, contradicts Rickys identification of Boyd as the shooter. According to Fleming: (1) Ricky told him, a few months after the shooting, that he did not see the shooter and did not know who shot him.70 (2) Ricky said he was running away when he was shot, so he never saw the shooter.71 (3) Ricky told me that he had told the police that Latherial Boyd was the shooter because Boyd had threatened him before, but he did not really know that Boyd was the shooter.72

69 70 71 72

See id. See id. at 14. See id. See id.

18

e.

According To One Disinterested Eyewitness, Not Only Did She Tell The Police That She Could Not Identify Anyone in The Line-Up That Included Lathierial Boyd; She Told Them That Boyd Was Not The Shooter One of the disinterested eyewitnesses (Jennifer Bonanno) has said that

not only did she tell the police that she could not identify anyone in the lineup that included Boyd; she told them that Boyd was not the shooter.73 f. Herbert Warners Testimony That Lathierial Boyd Had A RAT Vanity License Plate Does Not Match Illinois Secretary of State Records As stated, Herbert Warner testified that when Boyd came to his house, told him that Ricky owed him money, and made threats, he arrived in a car that had a vanity license plate: RAT.74 This testimony was relied upon by the prosecutor in closing argument and by the judge in finding Boyd guilty.75 However, Illinois Secretary of State records show that (as the police knew prior to trial) Boyd did not have such a license plate.76 (At a post-conviction proceeding, the judge accepted thisthat Boyd did not have a RAT vanity license plateas fact, ruling that trial counsel, in failing to develop and

73 74 75 76

See id. at 14-15. See id. at 15. See id. See id.

19

present this evidence at trial, had not performed in an objectively unreasonable fashion for Strickland purposes.77) g. Ricky Warners Testimony That The Beeper Numbers On Peoples Exhibit 20 Belonged To Lathierial Boyd And His Partner Do Not Match Pager Company Records As stated, Ricky Warner testified that Boyd gave him a piece of paper (Peoples Exhibit 20) a couple of months before the shooting that contained his and his partner Reggies beeper numbers.78 No evidence was presented to corroborate the proposition that these numbers belonged to these men.79 Pager company records show that they did not.80 (As with the RAT trial testimony, the post-conviction judge accepted thisthat these beeper numbers did not belong to these menas fact.81) 4. Lathierial Boyds Efforts, During 20 Years Of Incarceration, To Overturn His Conviction, Establish His Innocence, And Regain His Freedom Except when sidelined by health problems, Lathierial Boyd has fought for the last 20 years, tirelessly and relentlessly, to overturn his conviction, establish his innocence, and regain his freedom. As his former lawyers put it: Throughout the years since he has been convicted, Lathierial Boyd has
77 78 79 80 81

See id. See id. at 16. See id. See id. See id.

20

worked passionately to prove his innocence and to undercut the evidence that was used to convict him.82 In a similar vein, journalists who prepared a television news story about Boyds case stated: Lathieriel Boyd has spent every day of the last twelve years behind bars proclaiming his innocence. Hes written thousands of letters, trying to get somebody to help him prove hes not a killer.83 Boyd himself has summarized his efforts, in a sworn statement, this way: During the 20 years that Ive been locked up, except for when Ive been sidelined by health problems, I have worked extremely hard to try to regain my freedom. Writing letters from my prison cell, I developed evidence contradicting Herbert Warners testimony about the RAT vanity license plate. I also developed evidence contradicting Ricky Warners testimony about the beeper numbers on Peoples Ex. 20. In 1998, I prepared and filed a 49-page pro se postconviction petition. And I have written hundreds and hundreds of letters over the years to lawyers, investigators, and journalists all over the country (including the people at WGN-TV News who did a story about my case in 2002).84

82

Id. at 16-17 (quoting Professor Lawrence C. Marshall, then at Northwestern Law School and now at Stanford Law School, and Patricia A. Bronte and Lisa Parker Gates, then at Jenner & Block). Id. at 17 (quoting Muriel Clair, WGN-TV Reporter, and Jason Jedlinski, former WGN-TV Producer). See id. at 17-18.

83

84

21

APPENDIX

Case: 11-1945

Document: 10

Filed: 05/31/2011

Pages: 1

United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuit Chicago,Illinois60604 SubmittedMay9,2011 DecidedMay31,2011 Before MICHAELS.KANNE,CircuitJudge DIANEP.WOOD,CircuitJudge DAVIDF.HAMILTON,CircuitJudge

No.111945 LATHIERIALBOYD, PetitionerAppellant, v. No.1:08cv04257 GUYPIERCE, RespondentAppellee. RobertW.Gettleman, Judge. AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict CourtfortheNorthernDistrictof Illinois,EasternDivision.

ORDER UponconsiderationoftheMOTIONTOVACATETHECERTIFICATEOF APPEALABILITY,filedonMay4,2011,byrespondentAppellee, ITISORDEREDthatthemotionisDENIED. ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatthejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisAFFIRMED. Boydspetitionistimebarredandanytollingargumentbasedonactualinnocencewould beforeclosedbythedecisionsofthiscourt.SeeGriffithv.Rednour,614F.3d328,331(7thCir. 2010);Escamillav.Jungwirth,426F.3d868,87172(7thCir.2005).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify as follows: (1) I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served on the following lawyer by mailing it to her on January 9, 2012: Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, 100 W. Randolph St., 12th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601. (2) All parties required to be served have been served. _______________________________ Richard H. McLeese Counsel for Petitioner Lathierial Boyd